On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 01:12:14PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 12:12:58PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > ...
> >> collapses two (or more) paths if we go that way.  We only need to
> >> report "we tried to check out X but it seems your filesystem equates
> >> something else that is also in the project to X".
> >
> > Heh. See my similar suggestion in:
> >
> >   https://public-inbox.org/git/20180728095659.ga21...@sigill.intra.peff.net/
> >
> > and the response from Duy.
> 
> Yes, but is there a reason why we need to report what that
> "something else" is?

I don't think it's strictly necessary, but it probably makes things
easier for the user. That said...

> Presumably we are already in an error codepath, so if it is
> absolutely necessary, then we can issue a lstat() to grab the inum
> for the path we are about to create, iterate over the previously
> checked out paths issuing lstat() and see which one yields the same
> inum, to find the one who is the culprit.

Yes, this is the cleverness I was missing in my earlier response.

So it seems do-able, and I like that this incurs no cost in the
non-error case.

-Peff

Reply via email to