From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] add -u: only show pathless 'add -u' warning when changes exist outside cwd Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 01:06:49 -0400 Message-ID: <20130320050648.GB1839@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1362786889-28688-1-git-send-email-gitster@pobox.com> <20130319224400.GA19014@google.com> <20130319225050.GE19014@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , Matthieu Moy , git@vger.kernel.org, =?utf-8?B?Tmd1eeG7hW4gVGjDoWkgTmfhu41j?= Duy To: Jonathan Nieder X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Mar 20 06:07:23 2013 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 1UIBFC-0000lU-Ok for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 06:07:23 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754032Ab3CTFGz (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Mar 2013 01:06:55 -0400 Received: from 75-15-5-89.uvs.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([75.15.5.89]:59292 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753515Ab3CTFGy (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Mar 2013 01:06:54 -0400 Received: (qmail 4834 invoked by uid 107); 20 Mar 2013 05:08:38 -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; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 01:08:38 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 20 Mar 2013 01:06:49 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130319225050.GE19014@google.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 03:50:50PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > This is the interesting one. > [...] > * summarized Peff's review with an Ack. I hope that's ok. Yeah, OK with me. I certainly agree with the intent, and I think your reasoning on the performance change is valid. I don't see anything wrong in the patch itself, except for one minor nit: > @@ -121,17 +140,30 @@ static void update_callback(struct diff_queue_struct *q, > } > } > > +#define ADD_CACHE_IMPLICIT_DOT 32 > int add_files_to_cache(const char *prefix, const char **pathspec, int flags) > { > struct update_callback_data data; > struct rev_info rev; Should this be defined in cache.h with the other flags? I realize it's mostly private to builtin/add.c, but without even a comment in cache.h saying "/* 32 is reserved */", we run the risk of another commit adding a new flag with the same number. -Peff