Re: [PATCH] Don't update unchanged merge entries

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008, Daniel Barkalow wrote:

quoted

While you're at it, you should at least fix the comment. I actually think 
it would be better to have update start out 0 and be set to CE_UPDATE 
after verify_uptodate() and verify_absent(), since those checks are what 
verifies that using CE_UPDATE is okay.

Well, I just made it match the old behavior. It used to be that the 
copy_cache_entry() would clear the CE_UPDATE bit in the target 'merge' 
entry, so I just cleared "update" there, the way we used to do it.

So now we actually *do* match the comment again - the bug was that we 
didn't match it before due to it all being a bit too subtle.

Well, the top part of the comment suggests that this is just an 
optimization (don't bother to write out a file that you know is 
unchanged), when it's actually necessary for correctness (since we don't 
know if the working tree matches the old index).

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*