[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       git
Subject:    Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] stash: drop usage of a second index
From:       Junio C Hamano <gitster () pobox ! com>
Date:       2020-07-31 17:48:31
Message-ID: xmqq4kpn4lu8.fsf () gitster ! c ! googlers ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Alban Gruin <alban.gruin@gmail.com> writes:

> The old scripted `git stash' used to create a second index to save
> modified and untracked files, and restore untracked files, without
> affecting the main index.  This behaviour was carried on when it was
> rewritten in C, and here, most operations performed on the second index
> are done by forked commands (ie. `read-tree' instead of reset_tree(),
> etc.).

Does the "second index" in the title refer to the on-disk $TMPindex
in https://github.com/git/git/blob/ffac537e6c/git-stash.sh#L147 that
is used to create a tree object $u_tree (and similarly for the
working tree files $w_tree)?

> The goal of this series is to modernise (a bit) builtin/stash.c.

Modernise in what way is quite unclear.  With the internal API we
have available from C code, we can create a tree object from an
in-core index without writing the in-core index out to an on-disk
file that is different from the main on-disk index file, and I
suspect, from the "drop usage of" in the title, that it is what this
series is trying to do, but the description could have been written
in a way that is more helpful to readers to understand it without
having to guess.  It made me wonder if you are not even using the
secondary in-core index and no longer writing the tree to record the
untracked paths and their contents, but obviously such a patch would
not work well ;-)

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]