From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Rast Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Revamping "git status" Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 22:14:12 +0200 Message-ID: <200908052214.13512.trast@student.ethz.ch> References: <1249463746-21538-1-git-send-email-gitster@pobox.com> <200908052052.28067.trast@student.ethz.ch> <7v3a862fnj.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Aug 05 22:14:38 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MYmsd-000620-Jc for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 05 Aug 2009 22:14:36 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752441AbZHEUO1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Aug 2009 16:14:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752143AbZHEUO1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Aug 2009 16:14:27 -0400 Received: from gwse.ethz.ch ([129.132.178.238]:52106 "EHLO gwse.ethz.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751623AbZHEUO1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Aug 2009 16:14:27 -0400 Received: from CAS02.d.ethz.ch (129.132.178.236) by gws01.d.ethz.ch (129.132.178.238) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.375.2; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 22:14:26 +0200 Received: from thomas.localnet (84.74.103.245) by mail.ethz.ch (129.132.178.227) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.375.2; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 22:14:25 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.0 (Linux/2.6.27.25-0.1-default; KDE/4.2.98; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <7v3a862fnj.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano wrote: > Thomas Rast writes: > > > So it detects there are worktree changes, but then decides not to show > > them because it's an unmerged entry. I think the following should go > > in 3/5, but note that I haven't looked at the rest of the code to > > check if it breaks anything: > > Thanks. Shouldn't it go in 4/5 instead, though? Er, yeah. *sigh* > > -- 8< -- > > diff --git i/wt-status.c w/wt-status.c > > index 6370fe2..5a68297 100644 > > --- i/wt-status.c > > +++ w/wt-status.c > > @@ -400,7 +400,8 @@ static int wt_status_check_worktree_changes(struct wt_status *s) > > for (i = 0; i < s->change.nr; i++) { > > struct wt_status_change_data *d; > > d = s->change.items[i].util; > > - if (!d->worktree_status) > > + if (!d->worktree_status > > + || d->index_status == DIFF_STATUS_UNMERGED) > > continue; > > changes = 1; > > if (d->worktree_status == DIFF_STATUS_DELETED) > > -- >8 -- > > Not "d->worktree_status"? That would be more consistent with what > wt_status_print_changed() actually ends up checking. Hmm, true. I just picked index_status because unmerged state is an index property. It's probably better if the two functions agree on the criterion. -- Thomas Rast trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch