From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: bdowning@lavos.net (Brian Downing) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add read_cache to builtin-check-attr Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:45:41 -0500 Message-ID: <20070814184541.GL21692@lavos.net> References: <11870975181798-git-send-email-bdowning@lavos.net> <7vhcn2c673.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Marius Storm-Olsen , Steffen Prohaska , dmitry.kakurin@gmail.com, git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Aug 14 20:46:02 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IL1Oz-0004m6-04 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:46:01 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765628AbXHNSp6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:45:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1761450AbXHNSp5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:45:57 -0400 Received: from gateway.insightbb.com ([74.128.0.19]:23204 "EHLO asav02.insightbb.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761381AbXHNSp4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:45:56 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtZjAM+UwUZKhvbzRmdsb2JhbACBVIUlhxYBAQE1AQ Received: from 74-134-246-243.dhcp.insightbb.com (HELO mail.lavos.net) ([74.134.246.243]) by asav02.insightbb.com with ESMTP; 14 Aug 2007 14:45:50 -0400 Received: by mail.lavos.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 97EFE309F31; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:45:41 -0500 (CDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vhcn2c673.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 11:38:24AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > That interface is at too low a level, I am afraid. Many > commands do want to control when they read the index and it > affects the result, especially when the work tree traversal > implemented in dir.c is involved. > > I am not rejecting/objecting, but just raising concerns. I do > not have time to review this today, but just wanted to see if > you fully assessed the implications (and if so that would save > work on my end). I really don't understand the implications. That was just something that got it working on my end, and I figured I should send it along in case it was just that simple. -bcd