On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 07:02:45PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Quentin Casasnovas
> <quentin.casasnovas@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> > If not, I am willing to implement a --assume-content-unchanged to the git
> > update-index if you guys don't see something fundamentally wrong with this
> > approach.
> 
> If you do that, I think you should go with either of the following options
> 
> - Extend git-update-index --index-info to take stat info as well (or
> maybe make a new option instead). Then you can feed stat info directly
> to git without a use-case-specific "assume-content-unchanged".
> 
> - Add "git update-index --touch" that does what "touch" does. In this
> case, it blindly updates stat info to latest. But like touch, we can
> also specify  mtime from command line if we need to. It's a bit less
> generic than the above option, but easier to use.
> 
> Caveat: The options I'm proposing can be rejected. So maybe wait a bit
> to see how people feel and perhaps send an RFC patch, again to gauge
> the reception.


Hey Duy,

Thanks for your answer.

I've played with this a bit last week and added an extra command, which I
called --refresh-stat, which works like your suggested --index.  It works
very well with my use case and improves the performances very significantly
on some of our use cases.

It is attached to this e-mail to gather comments, as you suggest, and is
really not meant to be reviewed for inclusion yet as it lacks test cases,
documentation changes, etc.  It is just a convenient way to show what I
need and receive comments.

The logic is simple enugh and will just skip calling ie_modified() when
refreshing the index.

Cheers,
Q