From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: git status: small difference between stating whole repository and small subdirectory Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:39:52 -0500 Message-ID: <20120220143952.GA8387@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20120216192001.GB4348@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20120217203755.GA30114@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vaa4hrtbe.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120217222912.GC31830@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20120220140653.GC5131@sigill.intra.peff.net> <87ty2l38ay.fsf@thomas.inf.ethz.ch> <20120220143644.GA13938@do> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Thomas Rast , Piotr Krukowiecki , Junio C Hamano , Git Mailing List To: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Feb 20 15:40:00 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RzUPI-0007p6-7V for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:40:00 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753057Ab2BTOjz (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:39:55 -0500 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:43840 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752205Ab2BTOjz (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:39:55 -0500 Received: (qmail 1592 invoked by uid 107); 20 Feb 2012 14:39:54 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:39:54 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:39:52 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120220143644.GA13938@do> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 09:36:44PM +0700, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote: > > test_expect_failure 'checkout gives cache-tree' ' > > git checkout HEAD^ && > > test_shallow_cache_tree > > ' > > > > ;-) > > Quick and dirty that passes that test. I think we could do better if > we analyse two way merge rules carefully and avoid this diff, but > that's too much for me right now. Unpack trees is already sprinkled with cache_tree_invalidate_path. But something seems to throw away the cache tree entirely (I think it may be that the extension simply isn't copied over to the destination index). I'm walking through it right now. -Peff