From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] git-add --intent-to-add (-N) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:59:01 -0700 Message-ID: <7vr68hejca.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <4b6f054f0808171702q10d89dfey98afa65634d26e91@mail.gmail.com> <7vfxp2m5w8.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7viqtukbec.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7v3akykb96.fsf_-_@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jonathan Nieder , Git Mailing List To: Daniel Barkalow X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Aug 22 07:00:22 2008 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 1KWOl3-0003YQ-TB for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 07:00:22 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752639AbYHVE7M (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:59:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752361AbYHVE7L (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:59:11 -0400 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:64084 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751109AbYHVE7L (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:59:11 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42D5662405; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:59:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-211.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 37B4762403; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:59:04 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Daniel Barkalow's message of "Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:34:13 -0400 (EDT)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 0DF60A8C-7007-11DD-A6AF-3113EBD4C077-77302942!a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Daniel Barkalow writes: > ... these are actually distinguishable, IIRC, by whether the > mode bits are set or not, but current code doesn't check that. IIRC, mode bits all zero means something different, so I do not think that would fly. If we really wanted to do this "intent-to-add" properly, we probably should give one of the flag bits in the in-core index structure. Unlike on-disk flag bits, they are not scarce resources anymore these days.