From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Clemens Buchacher Subject: update-index --really-refresh unsets assume-unchanged bit Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 10:57:22 +0200 Message-ID: <20100504085722.GA32217@localhost> References: <20100501092512.GA15941@localhost> <20100501092720.GB15941@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Junio C Hamano To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue May 04 10:57:48 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O9Dwp-0001ee-Ir for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 04 May 2010 10:57:47 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756875Ab0EDI5i (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 May 2010 04:57:38 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.152]:21971 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754672Ab0EDI5h (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 May 2010 04:57:37 -0400 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id d23so1441390fga.1 for ; Tue, 04 May 2010 01:57:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:received:date:from:to :cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=UF25VFOc60o+SSLVpthcIzpU/E3RNhd2+FQJYAsNJgI=; b=oj7iTvCEW7O1oKyh7C1jjB40Z/P5OP8rvHg7vvIJnka95YbUR69hUMriDB8d6WGAYT yiEGn6NqVXaId9041NGgVAufjG95LTiGPgiaJXIOW2SegmveB6/ndHcnGEH4cI8Hm/fM A3zk7GPzE+FiISacN7A5MIZ90Z6TDXBrKBMnQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:bcc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; b=Rr+gxE4KaSnOvIMHSrBXniLxqufJztXR4c2JaN1r9SwpMHV6WNiJbYwT9EpK0kOAW7 FQ9PmELwg69PKHiS6L/997Qm0lAVNRjnOhQ+AZ7FqcuW8UR/bzSt/l3AbmzSyJD6ykyr 6cW64d9pheFCIZRFeY77fxVotKGAElhQ4stAg= Received: by 10.87.20.36 with SMTP id x36mr12292227fgi.14.1272963455999; Tue, 04 May 2010 01:57:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from darc.lan (p549A456A.dip.t-dialin.net [84.154.69.106]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 35sm10670432fkt.7.2010.05.04.01.57.34 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 04 May 2010 01:57:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from drizzd by darc.lan with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O9DwQ-0000JT-RX; Tue, 04 May 2010 10:57:22 +0200 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100501092720.GB15941@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sat, May 01, 2010 at 11:27:20AM +0200, Clemens Buchacher wrote: > --really-refresh:: > Like '--refresh', but checks stat information unconditionally, > - without regard to the "assume unchanged" setting. > + without regard to the "assume unchanged" setting. The "assume > + unchanged" bit is unset for all paths. Scratch that latter part, please. I just noticed the bit is unset only for modified files. If the file matches the index, or even if it has been deleted in the work tree, the bit is _not_ unset. So the current behavior is quite strange. I see several possible interpretations of --really-refresh: Update index for specified paths, disregarding the assume-unchanged bit, a) ... and do not ignore work tree changes for tracked files any more. I.e., unset the assume-unchanged bit for all files. b) ... and do not ignore work tree changes for the specified paths any more. I.e., unset assume-unchanged bit only for specified paths. c) ... but continue ignoring work tree changes as before. I.e., do not unset the assume-unchanged bit for any paths. (and the current behavior) d) ... and do not ignore work tree changes for modified files any more. I.e., unset assume-unchanged bit for modified paths. I believe c) is the most useful, since it allows the user to deactivate the assume-unchanged bit temporarily. All other options potentially change the assume-unchanged bit, which the user may or may not want. In my opinion, it makes no sense to bundle the two operations "update index disregarding the assume-unchanged bit" and "(conditionally) unset assume-unchanged bit." Clemens