From: Derrick Stolee Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2025 14:06:59 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] sparse-checkout: add --verbose option to 'clean' Message-ID: <879b6673-1af9-4bb3-add3-a61c87d98777@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: On 8/5/25 6:22 PM, Elijah Newren wrote: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 6:34 PM Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget > wrote: >> >> From: Derrick Stolee >> >> The 'git sparse-checkout clean' subcommand is focused on directories, >> deleting any tracked sparse directories to clean up the worktree and >> make the sparse index feature work optimally. >> >> However, this directory-focused approach can leave users wondering why >> those directories exist at all. In my experience, these files are left >> over due to ignore or exclude patterns, Windows file handles, or >> possibly merge conflict resolutions. > > Seems reasonable. And based on your previous testcases, it might not > even be merge conflict resolutions, but just someone placing a > (possibly-modified) copy of a tracked file back into the directory. > > (I've seen folks do that, so it's not "just" your testcase doing > something unusual.) > >> Add a new '--verbose' option for users to see all the files that are >> being deleted (with '--force') or would be deleted (with '--dry-run'). > > Does that answer the users' question? You said above in your > experience it came from a few different reasons; will users want to > know which reason(s) for which files, or will they only want to know > the files that are present? I've had users asking for answers to both of these questions: 1. What files will this remove? (I want to make sure it won't remove something I care about.) 2. What files were causing my sparse index to expand? (I want to understand how my workflow impacts this behavior.) > You stated in the commit message that "users wonder...why those > directories exist at all." Presuming that listing files is sufficient > to answer those users questions, this patch looks good to me. I'm > unsure if that answers the question, or if some kind of classification > of the files would also be wanted (ignored, untracked, conflicted, > tracked-with-unstaged-changes, tracked-wtih-no-changes, > tracked-with-staged-changes). Maybe the answer is we start with this > and wait for user feedback and only add more if there's demand, but if > so it might be nice to state as much in the commit message. Sounds like a plan. This verbose output is intended to be human- readable and can easily be expanded in the future. Thanks, -Stolee