Re: [PATCH] reset: trivial refactoring
From: Martin von Zweigbergk <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:57:44
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ static int reset_index(const unsigned char *sha1, int reset_type, int quiet) if (unpack_trees(nr, desc, &opts)) return -1; - if (reset_type == MIXED || reset_type == HARD) { + if (reset_type == HARD) {
Are you sure that this can not be reached given that...
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -323,8 +323,11 @@ int cmd_reset(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) struct lock_file *lock = xcalloc(1, sizeof(struct lock_file)); int newfd = hold_locked_index(lock, 1); if (reset_type == MIXED) { + int flags = quiet ? REFRESH_QUIET : REFRESH_IN_PORCELAIN; if (read_from_tree(pathspec, sha1)) return 1; + refresh_index(&the_index, flags, NULL, NULL, + _("Unstaged changes after reset:")); } else { int err = reset_index(sha1, reset_type, quiet); if (reset_type == KEEP && !err)
...the line after this one reads err = reset_index(sha1, MIXED, quiet); ? I don't know what the consequence of not calling prime_cache_tree() would be, though. The merging of the two if blocks looks good. Thanks.