Re: [PATCH] cache-tree: populate cache-tree on successful merge

David Turner [off-list ref] writes:

On Tue, 2015-07-28 at 13:47 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

David Turner [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

When we unpack trees into an existing index, we discard the old index
and replace it with the new, merged index.  Ensure that this index has
its cache-tree populated.  This will make subsequent git status and
commit commands faster.

Signed-off-by: David Turner <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Brian Degenhardt <redacted>
---

This patch is by my colleague, Brian Degenhardt (as part of his work
on git at Twitter).  I'm sending it with his and Twitter's approval.

I'd need to tweak the From:/Author: line then, and flip the order of
the sign-off, as Brian wrote and signed off then David relayed (as
attached).

Where do I put an Author: line? In the commit message above the
signoffs?  As an email header?  I didn't see an option to git send-email
that would do this.  I don't want to use the From: header because I want
to be the point-of-contact for these patches.

The message you are responding to would have been a good example of
forcing the author, subject and author-date to be different from the
e-mail headers.  That is, if you did "git am -s -c" on my message
you responded to, you would have seen a new commit authored by
Brian; and anybody responding to the message would have sent that
e-mail to me (and git@vger.kernel.org).

I think that is the arrangement you are looking for.

Delete everything before and including the "-- >8 --" line from my
message you responded to and then the person who applies does not
have to say "-c" but just with "git am -s" the same thing would have
happened.  E-mail coming from (and reply going to) you, but resulting
commit would be authored by Brian.

"git send-email", if you are sending somebody else's commit, should
automatically add the in-body header "From: Brian ..." as the first
line of the body, with a blank line and the body of the commit log.

quoted

By the way, I wonder if we can lose/revert aecf567c (cache-tree:
create/update cache-tree on checkout, 2014-07-05), now the
underlying unpack_trees() does the necessary cache_tree_update()
when a branch is checked out.

Well, the tests still pass, so I guess so. That is, we still need the
WRITE_TREE_REPAIR bit, but not the update check.

Will re-roll once I hear back on the author line.

Let's not do the "drop cache-tree generation from checkout" in the
same patch.  It can be done as a separate patch but I do not think
it is a very high priority.

With that understanding, what I have received from you (with a minor
tweak shown in the message you are responding to) is already fine, I
think.

Thanks.