From: Phillip Wood <email@example.com> To: "Raymond E. Pasco" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, Junio C Hamano <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: email@example.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] apply: make i-t-a entries never match worktree Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 16:48:03 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <C4RO9JSUGPKG.2UQX61X628B6P@ziyou.local> Hi Raymond On 08/08/2020 15:07, Raymond E. Pasco wrote: > On Sat Aug 8, 2020 at 9:46 AM EDT, Phillip Wood wrote: >>> By definition, an intent-to-add index entry can never match the >>> worktree, because worktrees have no concept of intent-to-add entries. >>> Therefore, "apply --index" should always fail on intent-to-add paths. >> >> I'm not sure I understand the logic for this. If I run 'git add -N >> <path>' and <path> does not exist in the worktree what's the reason to >> stop a patch that creates <path> from applying? > > "apply --index" requires the index and worktree to match, and applies > the same path to both to get the same result in both. I brainstormed the > logic a few emails upthread, and that's what's consistent with > everything else. I had a quick scan of the earlier email and found > The index and the filesystem are both able to represent "no file" > and "a file exists" states, but the index has an additional > state (i-t-a) with no direct representation in the > worktree. By (correctly) emitting "new file" patches when > comparing a file to an i-t-a index entry, we are setting down the > rule that a "new file" patch is not merely the diff between "no > file" and "a file exists", but also the diff between i-t-a and "a > file exists". > > Similarly, "deleted file" patches are the diff between "a file > exists" and "no file exists", but they are also the diff between > i-t-a and "no file exists" - if you add -N a file and then delete > it from the worktree, "deleted file" is what git diff (correctly) > shows. As a consequence of these rules, "new file" and "deleted > file" diffs are now the only diffs that validly apply to an i-t-a > entry. So apply needs to handle them (in "--cached" mode, > anyway). If I've understood correctly an i-t-a entry in the index combined with nothing in the worktree is a deletion and that is why we don't want --index to succeed when applying a creation patch? If so an expanded explanation in the commit message to this patch would help rather than just saying 'by definition'. I'm still a bit confused as we don't count it as a deletion when using --cached or applying to the worktree. >> I was relieved to see from the next patch that this does not affect >> --cached even though the documentation says it implies --index. It might >> be worth mentioning that in the commit message. Also it would be easier >> to follow if the tests were in the same patch (this is what we usually >> do). > > --cached doesn't really imply --index - the docs are wrong and should be > changed. If anything, --index is closer to implying --cached - but > really, [no flags], --cached, and --index are three different modes with > different behavior. (Just removing "this implies --index" would be > sufficient to make the docs correct.) > >> How this does it affect --check? `git add -p` uses --check to verify >> that hunks that the user has edited still apply. It does not let the >> user edit the hunk for a newly added file at the moment but that is >> something I'm thinking of adding. > > --check goes through all the same code, The same code as --cached or --index? (I assume it's the former but wanted to be sure) Thanks Phillip >it just doesn't actually touch > anything in the index or worktree. Splittable/editable new file patches > are a logical related feature, IMO. (This is just to squash an error > that shouldn't happen.) >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-08 15:53 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-08-04 16:33 [PATCH] apply: Allow "new file" patches on i-t-a entries Raymond E. Pasco 2020-08-04 19:30 ` Junio C Hamano 2020-08-04 20:59 ` Raymond E. Pasco 2020-08-04 22:31 ` [PATCH v2] apply: allow " Raymond E. Pasco 2020-08-04 23:40 ` [PATCH v3] " Raymond E. Pasco 2020-08-04 23:49 ` [PATCH v2] " Junio C Hamano 2020-08-05 0:32 ` Raymond E. Pasco 2020-08-06 6:01 ` [PATCH v4 0/3] apply: handle i-t-a entries in index Raymond E. Pasco 2020-08-06 6:01 ` [PATCH v4 1/3] apply: allow "new file" patches on i-t-a entries Raymond E. Pasco 2020-08-06 6:01 ` [PATCH v4 2/3] apply: make i-t-a entries never match worktree Raymond E. Pasco 2020-08-06 21:00 ` Junio C Hamano 2020-08-06 21:47 ` Raymond E. Pasco 2020-08-06 6:01 ` [PATCH v4 3/3] t4140: test apply with i-t-a paths Raymond E. Pasco 2020-08-06 21:07 ` Junio C Hamano 2020-08-07 3:44 ` Raymond E. Pasco 2020-08-08 7:49 ` [PATCH v5 0/3] apply: handle i-t-a entries in index Raymond E. Pasco 2020-08-08 7:49 ` [PATCH v5 1/3] apply: allow "new file" patches on i-t-a entries Raymond E. Pasco 2020-08-08 13:47 ` Phillip Wood 2020-08-08 7:49 ` [PATCH v5 2/3] apply: make i-t-a entries never match worktree Raymond E. Pasco 2020-08-08 13:46 ` Phillip Wood 2020-08-08 14:07 ` Raymond E. Pasco 2020-08-08 15:48 ` Phillip Wood [this message] 2020-08-08 15:58 ` Raymond E. Pasco 2020-08-09 15:25 ` Phillip Wood 2020-08-09 17:58 ` Junio C Hamano 2020-08-10 11:03 ` [PATCH] git-apply.txt: correct description of --cached Raymond E. Pasco 2020-08-10 16:18 ` Junio C Hamano 2020-08-12 13:32 ` Phillip Wood 2020-08-12 19:23 ` Junio C Hamano 2020-08-12 20:52 ` Raymond E. Pasco 2020-08-12 13:59 ` Phillip Wood 2020-08-08 7:49 ` [PATCH v5 3/3] t4140: test apply with i-t-a paths Raymond E. Pasco 2020-08-23 15:58 ` Phillip Wood 2020-08-08 7:53 ` [PATCH 1/1] diff-lib: use worktree mode in diffs from i-t-a entries Raymond E. Pasco 2020-08-08 8:48 ` Martin Ågren 2020-08-08 10:46 ` Raymond E. Pasco 2020-08-08 14:21 ` Martin Ågren 2020-08-09 18:09 ` Junio C Hamano 2020-08-10 8:53 ` [PATCH] t4069: test diff behavior with i-t-a paths Raymond E. Pasco 2020-08-10 8:57 ` [PATCH] diff-lib: use worktree mode in diffs from i-t-a entries Raymond E. Pasco 2020-08-10 9:03 ` [RESEND PATCH v2] " Raymond E. Pasco 2020-08-10 16:22 ` [PATCH] t4069: test diff behavior with i-t-a paths Junio C Hamano 2020-08-10 16:23 ` Eric Sunshine 2020-08-10 21:47 ` Eric Sunshine 2020-08-10 22:09 ` Junio C Hamano 2020-08-10 22:13 ` Eric Sunshine 2020-08-10 22:22 ` Junio C Hamano 2020-08-10 23:02 ` Raymond E. Pasco 2020-08-10 23:21 ` Eric Sunshine 2020-08-11 3:29 ` Junio C Hamano 2020-08-08 7:58 ` [HYPOTHETICAL PATCH 0/2] apply: reject modification diffs to i-t-a entries Raymond E. Pasco 2020-08-08 7:58 ` [HYPOTHETICAL PATCH 1/2] " Raymond E. Pasco 2020-08-08 7:58 ` [HYPOTHETICAL PATCH 2/2] t4140: test failure of diff from empty blob to i-t-a path Raymond E. Pasco
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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] apply: make i-t-a entries never match worktree' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox: https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).