From: Jakub Narebski Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 23:37:24 GMT Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 8/8] --sparse for porcelains Message-ID: <200908160137.30384.jnareb@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <7veird4yyi.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jakub Narebski writes: > >>>> Hmmm... this looks like either argument for introducing --full option >>>> to git-checkout (ignore CE_VALID bit, checkout everything, and clean >>>> CE_VALID (?))... >>>> >>>> ...or for going with _separate_ bit for partial checkout, like in the >>>> very first version of this series, which otherwise functions like >>>> CE_VALID, or is just used to mark that CE_VALID was set using sparse. > > How would a separate bit help? Just like you need to clear CE_VALID bit > to revert the index into a normal (or "non sparse") state somehow, you > would need to have a way to clear that separate bit anyway. > > A separate bit would help only if you want to handle assume-unchanged and > sparse checkout independently. But my impression was that the recent lstat > reduction effort addressed the issue assume-unchanged were invented to > work around in the first place. Well, if we assume that we don't need (don't want) to handle assume-unchanged and sparse checkout independently, then of course the idea of having separate or additional bit for sparse doesn't make sense. -- Jakub Narebski Poland