On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:17:24PM +0100, Quentin Casasnovas wrote: > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 07:02:45PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Quentin Casasnovas > > wrote: > > > > > If not, I am willing to implement a --assume-content-unchanged to the git > > > update-index if you guys don't see something fundamentally wrong with this > > > approach. > > > > If you do that, I think you should go with either of the following options > > > > - Extend git-update-index --index-info to take stat info as well (or > > maybe make a new option instead). Then you can feed stat info directly > > to git without a use-case-specific "assume-content-unchanged". > > > > - Add "git update-index --touch" that does what "touch" does. In this > > case, it blindly updates stat info to latest. But like touch, we can > > also specify mtime from command line if we need to. It's a bit less > > generic than the above option, but easier to use. > > > > Caveat: The options I'm proposing can be rejected. So maybe wait a bit > > to see how people feel and perhaps send an RFC patch, again to gauge > > the reception. > > > Hey Duy, > > Thanks for your answer. > > I've played with this a bit last week and added an extra command, which I > called --refresh-stat, which works like your suggested --index. It works ^^^^^^^ Whoops, sorry! [...] *a bit* like your suggested *--touch*. [...] I don't really need it to support specific mtime from the CLI for my different use cases, but if someone has some ideas in how that would be useful, I can try implementing your --index-info change to support stat information to be passed around instead of my current simple implementation. Q