From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Baudis Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make git-update-cache --force-remove regular Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 22:41:55 +0200 Message-ID: <20050531204155.GH7013@pasky.ji.cz> References: <20050531165243.GD7013@pasky.ji.cz> <7vpsv7xjf2.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: torvalds@osdl.org, git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue May 31 22:44:40 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DdDZB-0008An-Sq for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 31 May 2005 22:42:28 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261449AbVEaUoO (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 May 2005 16:44:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261443AbVEaUoO (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 May 2005 16:44:14 -0400 Received: from w241.dkm.cz ([62.24.88.241]:44461 "HELO machine.sinus.cz") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261456AbVEaUmA (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 May 2005 16:42:00 -0400 Received: (qmail 8079 invoked by uid 2001); 31 May 2005 20:41:55 -0000 To: Junio C Hamano Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vpsv7xjf2.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-message-flag: Outlook : A program to spread viri, but it can do mail too. Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Dear diary, on Tue, May 31, 2005 at 09:52:17PM CEST, I got a letter where Junio C Hamano told me that... > >>>>> "PB" == Petr Baudis writes: > > PB> Make the --force-remove flag behave same as --add, --remove and > PB> --replace. This means I can do > > PB> git-update-cache --force-remove -- file1.c file2.c > > PB> which is probably saner and also makes it easier to use in cg-rm. > > I am ambivalent about this. Although I like the semantic > clean-up your proposed change makes, at the same time: > > $ git-update-cache --force-remove one --add two > > used to remove "one" and add "two", which has to be now written > as two separate calls, which is a slight a performance hit of > having to read the 1.6MB cache twice. Maybe it does not matter, > or the new usage's convenience outweighs it; I cannot tell > offhand. Sort all the forced removals to the end. I think it's still better than git-update-cache --force-remove one --force-remove two \ --force-remove three ... -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. -- Steve Taylor