Re: [PATCH 0/5] Revamping "git status"

Junio C Hamano wrote:

Thomas Rast [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

So it detects there are worktree changes, but then decides not to show
them because it's an unmerged entry.  I think the following should go
in 3/5, but note that I haven't looked at the rest of the code to
check if it breaks anything:

Thanks.  Shouldn't it go in 4/5 instead, though?

Er, yeah. *sigh*

quoted

-- 8< --

diff --git i/wt-status.c w/wt-status.c
index 6370fe2..5a68297 100644
--- i/wt-status.c
+++ w/wt-status.c

@@ -400,7 +400,8 @@ static int wt_status_check_worktree_changes(struct wt_status *s)
 	for (i = 0; i < s->change.nr; i++) {
 		struct wt_status_change_data *d;
 		d = s->change.items[i].util;
-		if (!d->worktree_status)
+		if (!d->worktree_status
+		    || d->index_status == DIFF_STATUS_UNMERGED)
 			continue;
 		changes = 1;
 		if (d->worktree_status == DIFF_STATUS_DELETED)
-- >8 --

Not "d->worktree_status"?  That would be more consistent with what
wt_status_print_changed() actually ends up checking.

Hmm, true.  I just picked index_status because unmerged state is an
index property.  It's probably better if the two functions agree on
the criterion.

-- 
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch