| commit | e701bab3e95f7029e59717eab610a544821b2213 | [log] [tgz] |
|---|---|---|
| author | Jeff King <peff@peff.net> | Wed Jan 08 06:43:44 2020 -0500 |
| committer | Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> | Wed Jan 08 09:03:36 2020 -0800 |
| tree | 7da8cbd68c26c0842c0a1c6d6bb936563195f0e4 | |
| parent | 313677627a8258a0a936136938302b244ae5511c [diff] |
restore: invalidate cache-tree when removing entries with --staged When "git restore --staged <path>" removes a path that's in the index, it marks the entry with CE_REMOVE, but we don't do anything to invalidate the cache-tree. In the non-staged case, we end up in checkout_worktree(), which calls remove_marked_cache_entries(). That actually drops the entries from the index, as well as invalidating the cache-tree and untracked-cache. But with --staged, we never call checkout_worktree(), and the CE_REMOVE entries remain. Interestingly, they are dropped when we write out the index, but that means the resulting index is inconsistent: its cache-tree will not match the actual entries, and running "git commit" immediately after will create the wrong tree. We can solve this by calling remove_marked_cache_entries() ourselves before writing out the index. Note that we can't just hoist it out of checkout_worktree(); that function needs to iterate over the CE_REMOVE entries (to drop their matching worktree files) before removing them. One curiosity about the test: without this patch, it actually triggers a BUG() when running git-restore: BUG: cache-tree.c:810: new1 with flags 0x4420000 should not be in cache-tree But in the original problem report, which used a similar recipe, git-restore actually creates the bogus index (and the commit is created with the wrong tree). I'm not sure why the test here behaves differently than my out-of-suite reproduction, but what's here should catch either symptom (and the fix corrects both cases). Reported-by: Torsten Krah <krah.tm@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Git is a fast, scalable, distributed revision control system with an unusually rich command set that provides both high-level operations and full access to internals.
Git is an Open Source project covered by the GNU General Public License version 2 (some parts of it are under different licenses, compatible with the GPLv2). It was originally written by Linus Torvalds with help of a group of hackers around the net.
Please read the file INSTALL for installation instructions.
Many Git online resources are accessible from https://git-scm.com/ including full documentation and Git related tools.
See Documentation/gittutorial.txt to get started, then see Documentation/giteveryday.txt for a useful minimum set of commands, and Documentation/git-.txt for documentation of each command. If git has been correctly installed, then the tutorial can also be read with man gittutorial or git help tutorial, and the documentation of each command with man git-<commandname> or git help <commandname>.
CVS users may also want to read Documentation/gitcvs-migration.txt (man gitcvs-migration or git help cvs-migration if git is installed).
The user discussion and development of Git take place on the Git mailing list -- everyone is welcome to post bug reports, feature requests, comments and patches to git@vger.kernel.org (read Documentation/SubmittingPatches for instructions on patch submission). To subscribe to the list, send an email with just “subscribe git” in the body to majordomo@vger.kernel.org. The mailing list archives are available at https://public-inbox.org/git/, http://marc.info/?l=git and other archival sites.
Issues which are security relevant should be disclosed privately to the Git Security mailing list git-security@googlegroups.com.
The maintainer frequently sends the “What's cooking” reports that list the current status of various development topics to the mailing list. The discussion following them give a good reference for project status, development direction and remaining tasks.
The name “git” was given by Linus Torvalds when he wrote the very first version. He described the tool as “the stupid content tracker” and the name as (depending on your mood):