Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] diff: turn skip_stat_unmatch on selectively

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 08:17:12 -0800

Duy Nguyen <[email-masked]> writes:

> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 2:25 AM, Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 02:51:45PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> This however shows that the existing test *KNEW* that it was enough
>> to check just a few cases (especially, there is no reason to make
>> sure that blob vs file-in-working-tree case behaves sanely), because
>> the auto-refresh would kick in for all codepaths.  Now you are
>> making that assumption invalid, shouldn't the patch also split the
>> tests to cover individual cases?
>
> Drop the last patch, then. It's a "while at there" cleanup patch. If
> it's non trivial then it could be taken up later...

I am leaning towards that because...

> ... not sure I'll go through
> diff.c to identify and write tests for all cases.

... the effort to ensure the correctness of the patch itself
involves the same identification of the cases.

We know the single place skip-stat-unmatch was assigned used to
cover all cases, and the patch was to stop covering cases the
unnecessary assignments are made while making sure the resulting
code still covers cases that assignments are necessary.