Re: [PATCH] clone: allow initial sparse checkouts

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Feb 25, 2014, 00:17 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqmwhg6o5r.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <robbat2-20140224T214733-300290109Z@orbis-terrarum.net>

"Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org> writes:

Show 12 quoted lines

> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 09:47:16AM -0800,  Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org> writes:
>> > The only other clean alternative would be implementing ONLY
>> > --sparse-checkout-from, and letting uses use fds creatively:
>> > --sparse-checkout-from <(echo X; echo Y)
>> Not all POSIX shells have such an abomination that is process
>> substitution.  You can easily work it around by adopting the usual
>> convention to use "-" to read from the standasrd input, though.
>> 
>> 	(echo X; echo Y) | cmd --sparse-checkout-from -
> Is that a vote that you'd like to see a --sparse-checkout-from variant
> of my patch?

Honestly, I do not particularly care too much about this feature, regardless of the interface [*1*].

It is just a vote that says "if --something-from form is going to be implemented, it should be able to read from the standard input with '-', unless there is a compelling reason not to do so".

[Footnote]

*1* In the longer term, I think sparse checkout is broken as a concept and I view this "use sparse checkout from the get-go" merely a stop-gap measure to make the band-aid a bit less painful to use. What you really want is a narrow clone, which is conceptually cleaner but a lot harder implentation-wise.

Not that keeping a band-aid usable longer is necessarily bad in the real world, though---so even I said *I*'m not interested, that is different from saying I'm not taking a patch on this topic.