Re: [PATCH 11/16] unpack_trees(): add support for narrow checkout

["Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy" <pclouds@gmail.com>]

On 9/16/08, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy  <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
>
>  > diff --git a/cache.h b/cache.h
>  > index 2b2c90f..1fc0f83 100644
>  > --- a/cache.h
>  > +++ b/cache.h
>  > @@ -167,6 +167,9 @@ struct cache_entry {
>  >  #define CE_HASHED    (0x100000)
>  >  #define CE_UNHASHED  (0x200000)
>  >
>  > +/* Only remove in work directory, not index */
>  > +#define CE_WD_REMOVE (0x400000)
>  > +
>  >  /*
>  >   * Extended on-disk flags
>  >   */
>  > diff --git a/unpack-trees.c b/unpack-trees.c
>  > index e59d144..968cc98 100644
>  > --- a/unpack-trees.c
>  > +++ b/unpack-trees.c
>  > @@ -96,6 +96,15 @@ static int check_updates(struct unpack_trees_options *o)
>  >       if (o->update && o->verbose_update) {
>  >               for (total = cnt = 0; cnt < index->cache_nr; cnt++) {
>  >                       struct cache_entry *ce = index->cache[cnt];
>  > +
>  > +                     if (ce->ce_flags & CE_WD_REMOVE) {
>  > +                             total++;
>  > +                             continue;
>  > +                     }
>  > +
>  > +                     if (ce_no_checkout(ce))
>  > +                             continue;
>  > +
>  >                       if (ce->ce_flags & (CE_UPDATE | CE_REMOVE))
>  >                               total++;
>  >               }
>
>
> This check for ce_no_checkout() before the existing check to see if
>  CE_UPDATE and/or CE_REMOVE are on puzzles me (you have the same check
>  sequence in later loop that does the actualy worktree updates).  If
>  apply_narrow_checkout() check is working correctly, would we ever give
>  CE_UPDATE and/or CE_REMOVE bits to a cache entry with CE_NO_CHECKOUT set?
>
>  IOW, I think this extra check is Ok as it is expected to be no-op when
>  combined with the existing check, but it leaves me wondering if it is
>  hiding some codepath that incorrectly sets CE_UPDATE/CE_REMOVE to an entry
>  outside the narrow checkout area.

Gaaah.. I was confused with older series where verify_uptodate() was
patched to ignore missing files. You are right, the check is not
necessary, will need more test for this. With the current patch, it
will fail to merge as soon as some files need to be updated outside
narrow area.
-- 
Duy