From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60C3F20229 for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 21:03:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753912AbcKAVDT (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Nov 2016 17:03:19 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:37209 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752855AbcKAVDS (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Nov 2016 17:03:18 -0400 Received: (qmail 25050 invoked by uid 109); 1 Nov 2016 21:03:13 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 21:03:13 +0000 Received: (qmail 29979 invoked by uid 111); 1 Nov 2016 21:03:39 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 17:03:39 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 01 Nov 2016 17:03:10 -0400 Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 17:03:10 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Philip Oakley Cc: "Halde, Faiz" , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Git issue Message-ID: <20161101210310.sqrhvviry7iyyjrm@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20161101174526.e2tilsriz2fqaru3@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7CE3166CFD244DAABF554451E8B0800F@PhilipOakley> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7CE3166CFD244DAABF554451E8B0800F@PhilipOakley> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 08:50:23PM -0000, Philip Oakley wrote: > > From "git help update-index": > > > > --[no-]assume-unchanged > > When this flag is specified, the object names recorded for > > the paths are not updated. Instead, this option sets/unsets > > the "assume unchanged" bit for the paths. When the "assume > > unchanged" bit is on, the user promises not to change the > > file and allows Git to assume that the working tree file > > matches what is recorded in the index. If you want to change > > the working tree file, you need to unset the bit to tell Git. > > This is sometimes helpful when working with a big project on > > a filesystem that has very slow lstat(2) system call (e.g. > > cifs). > > > > Git will fail (gracefully) in case it needs to modify this > > file in the index e.g. when merging in a commit; thus, in > > case the assumed-untracked file is changed upstream, you will > > need to handle the situation manually. > > > > The whole section (including the ones above this quote) are often confused > between the promises of the user, and the alleged promises of Git. Even in > the quote above the "Instead" probably shouldn't be there. I think the "Instead" is "we are not doing the usual update-index thing of reading the new data from disk; instead, we are _just_ setting the bit". Perhaps that can be spelled out more clearly, but I think just dropping "Instead" is a step backwards. > Given the number of misrepresentations (on the web) of what the bit does, > and the ongoing misunderstandings of users it does feel like the man page > article could be refreshed to be more assertive about the users promise, and > Git's cautions. I dunno. I know this has long been a source of confusion, but I specifically dug in the docs to see what we had, and I thought what I quoted above was pretty clear. That has "only" been around for about 2 years, and is fighting against other mis-advice on the Internet, though. So I'm not sure if it is badly worded, or if people simply do not see it. -Peff