Re: [PATCH v2 04/11] sparse-checkout: 'set' subcommand

From: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 7, 2019, 18:26 UTC
Message-ID: <0c3e34ab-1eee-fe29-f584-d21047fd1457@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABPp-BGcZT2-m=D_X4d7zE9pzuWTKCnmURruahdQndpp=+-_WA@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/5/2019 8:30 PM, Elijah Newren wrote:

Show 30 quoted lines

> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 3:44 PM Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 3:07 PM Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
>> <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> +static int write_patterns_and_update(struct pattern_list *pl)
>>> +{
>>> +       char *sparse_filename;
>>> +       FILE *fp;
>>> +
>>> +       sparse_filename = get_sparse_checkout_filename();
>>> +       fp = fopen(sparse_filename, "w");
>>> +       write_patterns_to_file(fp, pl);
>>> +       fclose(fp);
>>> +       free(sparse_filename);
>>> +
>>> +       clear_pattern_list(pl);
>>
>> It seems slightly odd that pl is passed in but cleared in this
>> function rather than in the caller that created pl.  Should this be
>> moved to the caller, or, alternatively, a comment added to explain
>> this side-effect for future callers of the function?
>>
>> The rest of the patch looked good to me.
> 
> Actually, thought of something else.  What if the user calls 'git
> sparse-checkout set ...' without first calling 'git sparse-checkout
> init'?  Should that report an error to the user, a suggestion to
> follow it up with 'sparse-checkout init', or should it just call
> sc_set_config() behind the scenes and allow bypassing the init
> subcommand?

Maybe a warning would suffice. I still think the workflow of the following is most correct, and not difficult to recommend:

* "git sparse-checkout init [--cone]" -OR- "git clone --sparse"
* git sparse-checkout set [stuff]
* git sparse-checkout disable

Thanks, -Stolee