list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Junio C Hamano <>
To: Thomas Rast <>
Cc: <>, Michael Haggerty <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] merge-recursive: untangle double meaning of o->call_depth
Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2013 11:37:08 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <> (Thomas Rast's message of "Sun, 7 Jul 2013 20:02:39 +0200")

Thomas Rast <> writes:

> o->call_depth has a double function: a nonzero call_depth means we
> want to construct virtual merge bases, but it also means we want to
> avoid touching the worktree.  Introduce a new flag o->no_worktree for
> the latter.

I do remember discussing this with you the other day, and while I do
agree that we may not want to touch the working tree in the
outermost merge (i.e. o->call_depth is zero) in some applications, I
do not think of a situation where you _do_ want to touch working
tree while performing the inner merge.  I'd feel safer if the code
said that "no matter what no-worktree option says, we won't touch
the working tree if o->call_depth is not zero" clearly in some way,

	if (o->call_depth || o->in_index_merge)
        	return; /* leave without touching working tree */

In other words, I do not like the part of the code that pretends
these two are independent options, when what we really want is to
have two modes for the outermost (o->call_depth == 0) case.

  reply	other threads:[~2013-07-07 18:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-07-07 18:02 [PATCH 0/3] merge -Xindex-only Thomas Rast
2013-07-07 18:02 ` [PATCH 1/3] merge-recursive: remove dead conditional in update_stages() Thomas Rast
2013-07-07 18:02 ` [PATCH 2/3] merge-recursive: untangle double meaning of o->call_depth Thomas Rast
2013-07-07 18:37   ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2013-07-07 18:02 ` [PATCH 3/3] merge-recursive: -Xindex-only to leave worktree unchanged Thomas Rast
2013-07-08 15:21 ` [PATCH 0/3] merge -Xindex-only Michael Haggerty
2013-07-08 15:44   ` Thomas Rast
2013-07-09  9:44     ` Michael Haggerty
2013-07-09 12:08       ` Thomas Rast
2013-07-09 19:38         ` Michael Haggerty
2013-07-09 20:01           ` Thomas Rast
2013-10-26 14:40             ` Thomas Rast
2013-10-26 14:43               ` [PATCH 1/3] merge-recursive: remove dead conditional in update_stages() Thomas Rast
2013-10-26 14:43                 ` [PATCH 2/3] merge-recursive: internal flag to avoid touching the worktree Thomas Rast
2013-10-26 14:43                 ` [PATCH 3/3] merge-recursive: -Xindex-only to leave worktree unchanged Thomas Rast

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

  List information:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 2/3] merge-recursive: untangle double meaning of o->call_depth' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link list mirror (unofficial, one of many)

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror
	git clone --mirror http://ou63pmih66umazou.onion/git
	git clone --mirror http://czquwvybam4bgbro.onion/git
	git clone --mirror http://hjrcffqmbrq6wope.onion/git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V1 git git/ \
	public-inbox-index git

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroups are available over NNTP:
 note: .onion URLs require Tor:

code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox:

AGPL code for this site: git clone