Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] unpack-trees: don't update files with CE_WT_REMOVE set

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:20:11 -0700

Duy Nguyen <[email-masked]> writes:

> Thank you both for catching this. Just a small suggestion. Perhaps we
> should do this instead. apply_sparse_checkout() is the function where
> all "action" manipulation (add, delete, update files..) for sparse
> checkout occurs and it should not ask to delete and update both at the
> same time.

Sounds good.  The first hunk may merely be a noise, but the second
one is the true bugfix for the issue observed, I think.

>
> -- 8< --
> diff --git a/unpack-trees.c b/unpack-trees.c
> index 2927660..d6cf849 100644
> --- a/unpack-trees.c
> +++ b/unpack-trees.c
> @@ -224,6 +224,9 @@ static int check_updates(struct unpack_trees_options *o)
>  		struct cache_entry *ce = index->cache[i];
>  
>  		if (ce->ce_flags & CE_UPDATE) {
> +			if (ce->ce_flags & CE_WT_REMOVE)
> +				die("BUG: both update and delete flags are set on %s",
> +				    ce->name);
>  			display_progress(progress, ++cnt);
>  			ce->ce_flags &= ~CE_UPDATE;
>  			if (o->update && !o->dry_run) {
> @@ -293,6 +296,7 @@ static int apply_sparse_checkout(struct index_state *istate,
>  		if (!(ce->ce_flags & CE_UPDATE) && verify_uptodate_sparse(ce, o))
>  			return -1;
>  		ce->ce_flags |= CE_WT_REMOVE;
> +		ce->ce_flags &= ~CE_UPDATE;
>  	}
>  	if (was_skip_worktree && !ce_skip_worktree(ce)) {
>  		if (verify_absent_sparse(ce, ERROR_WOULD_LOSE_UNTRACKED_OVERWRITTEN, o))
> -- 8< --
>
> --
> Duy