Re: [PATCH] ls-files: do not trust stat info if lstat() fails

Duy Nguyen [off-list ref] writes:

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 1:15 AM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

I am guessing that, even though this was discovered during the
development of list-files, is a fix applicable outside the context
of that series.

I do think the patched result is an improvement than the status quo,
but at the same time, I find it insufficient in the context of the
whole codepath.  What if errno were other than ENOENT and we were
told to show_deleted (with or without show_modified)?  We would end
up saying the path was deleted and modified at the same time, when
we do not know either is or is not true at all, because of the
failure to lstat() the path.

Wouldn't it be saner to add tag_unknown and do something like this
instead, I wonder?

Or even better to show an error message when the error code is
unexpected? The unkown tag '!' says "there are problems" but if it
shows up sort of permanently, '!' won't help much, I think.

I am OK with that approach, but then one question remains: should we
say it is deleted, modified, both, or neither?