Re: [RFH] bug in unpack_trees

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Daniel Barkalow wrote:

The thing that's hopeless isn't including the index; it's including the 
index that's simultaneously being regenerated.

Yeah. I was thinking about just putting the result in a new index. It's 
*usually* what the user wants anyway. The whole complexity with updating 
the old index is really nasty.

There are other complexities there, but the index one is the worst.

When doing a stupid try at using "traverse_trees()" (which in itself was 
not that easy - traverse_trees() is a fundamentally simpler walker and 
_different_ enough to not match well), one of the bigger issues is that 
traverse_trees() wants to do the directories in a separate phase from the 
files (becasue they sort differently), and that coupled with the fact that 
we do a kind of "read-modify-write" on the index makes it all really ugly.

I'm still working on it, but it's nastier than I was hoping for. Maybe you 
can come up with a better solution.

		Linus