Re: [RFC PATCH v3 8/8] --sparse for porcelains

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 17, 2009, 18:39 UTC
Message-ID: <7vws52uvxq.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0908171817570.4991@intel-tinevez-2-302>

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

> However, my illustration of the scenario was only to one end, namely to 
> convince all of you that assume-changed != sparse.
>
> And maybe to the end to explain that sparse checkout could help this guy.

How? If sparse is _not to check it out_, then that is not what the person is doing either. It feels to me that you are suggesting an inappropriate hack to replace another inappropriate hack, suggesting to use a hacksaw because an earlier attempt to use a hammer did not quite work to drive the screw in.

I never said assume-unchanged _is_ sparse. You cannot mark an index entry that does not exist, obviously you need more (either the earlier "hook that tells what should/shouldn't exist", or "the pattern").

But I think the work-tree semantics you need to _implement_ sparse matches what you would want from assume-unchanged. Not the original, draconian one that updates the work tree by saying "you promised me you wouldn't change them", but the updated one that tells git to pretend that the local change is not there but still keep the local modification, including deletion. The work-tree "local changes" sparse makes is a small subset of possible local changes assume-unchanged would need to support. It only deletes work tree files.