Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] archive: do not read .gitattributes in working directory
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:46:35
Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy [off-list ref] writes:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -168,6 +171,22 @@ int write_archive_entries(struct archiver_args *args, context.args = args; context.write_entry = write_entry; + /* + * Setup index and instruct attr to read index only + */ + if (!args->worktree_attributes) { + memset(&opts, 0, sizeof(opts)); + opts.index_only = 1; + opts.head_idx = -1; + opts.src_index = &the_index; + opts.dst_index = &the_index; + opts.fn = oneway_merge; + init_tree_desc(&t, args->tree->buffer, args->tree->size); + if (unpack_trees(1, &t, &opts)) + return -1; + git_attr_set_direction(GIT_ATTR_INDEX, &the_index);
Why use unpack_trees with oneway_merge? You won't be doing "is this file up-to-date in the work tree?", and you won't be writing the index out either, so there is nothing gained by keeping the cached stat information fresh, which is the major justification of using that mechanism. I think using tree.c::read_tree() would be more appropriate.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/builtin-tar-tree.c b/builtin-tar-tree.c index 0713bca..69a93fc 100644 --- a/builtin-tar-tree.c +++ b/builtin-tar-tree.c@@ -36,6 +36,11 @@ int cmd_tar_tree(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) argv++; argc--; } + if (2 <= argc && !strcmp(argv[1], "--fix-attributes")) { + nargv[nargc++] = argv[1]; + argv++; + argc--; + }
I am not sure if it is worth backporting this new option to tar-tree which is an essentially backward-compatibility interface, and worse yet, doing it poorly (i.e. --fix-attributes must come after --remote= for unexplained reason). It would affect a bit more tests, but I think you would want to test both the new "normal" mode of operation (generate archives with "git archive" and "git tar-tree" without options and compare, for example), instead of adding --fix-attributes everywhere.