Re: bug report on update-index --assume-unchanged

Duy Nguyen [off-list ref] writes:

You are correct about the original idea behind --assume-unchanged. But
over the time I think we bend over a bit and sort of support these use
cases. For example, aecda37 (do not overwrite files marked "assume
unchanged" - 2010-05-01). The change is one-liner, so I don't mind
doing it.

I think that was a misguided change to make the semantics muddy and
to break the existing users who use the bit for its intended purpose
(i.e. to avoid lstat() by promising that it is not necessary), and
not "bending over to support".  Offhand, I doubt we would want to
add more of the same kind.