From: Junio C Hamano Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2026 16:59:10 GMT Subject: Re: [GSoC PATCH] backfill: auto-detect sparse-checkout from config Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260331112516.772635-1-vikingtc4@gmail.com> Trieu Huynh writes: > git backfill currently initializes the `sparse` field in > backfill_context to 0. This causes the command to always perform a > full backfill by default, even when the repository has sparse-checkout > enabled in its configuration (core.sparseCheckout). > > Because 'sparse' is explicitly set to 0 at initialization, any later > logic intended to auto-detect the setting from the repository > configuration becomes dead code, as it only triggers if the value > is negative (sentinel). > > Change the initial value of .sparse to -1. This allows the command > to correctly fallback to the repository's sparse-checkout settings > when the '--sparse' or '--no-sparse' options are not provided on the > command line. The author of bff45557 (backfill: add --sparse option, 2025-02-03), where this .sparse member originates, CC'ed for more intelligent input than my review can offer ;-) > Add a test case in t5620-backfill.sh to verify that 'git backfill' > automatically respects the sparse-checkout configuration without > explicit flags. > > Signed-off-by: Trieu Huynh > --- > builtin/backfill.c | 2 +- > t/t5620-backfill.sh | 15 +++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/builtin/backfill.c b/builtin/backfill.c > index 4b2db94173..0f31844ce7 100644 > --- a/builtin/backfill.c > +++ b/builtin/backfill.c > @@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ int cmd_backfill(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix, struct reposit > .repo = repo, > .current_batch = OID_ARRAY_INIT, > .min_batch_size = 50000, > - .sparse = 0, > + .sparse = -1, > .show_progress = -1, > }; > struct option options[] = { I am a bit confused by this change. What's the difference between using -1 (which you picked) and 1 as the initial value for this member? From the proposed log message, I would have expected a new code that says "ah, we notice, from this member being -1, that the user did not specify --no-sparse or --sparse, so let's figure out if our working tree is sparsely checked out ourselves and set it either to 0 or to 1", but there is nothing like that in the code. It seems that the updated code relies on the fact that this part of do_backfill() only cares if .sparse is zero or not, and ... if (ctx->sparse) { CALLOC_ARRAY(info.pl, 1); if (get_sparse_checkout_patterns(info.pl)) { path_walk_info_clear(&info); return error(_("problem loading sparse-checkout")); } } ... relies on get_sparse_checkout_patterns() not to do any harm when the working tree is not sparsely checked out. I am not sure if we want to call it "auto-detction". It looks more like "default to --sparse, relying that --sparse is a no-op in a non-sparse working tree" at least to me. Not that it is necessarily wrong, and when people do "backfill" knowing that the working tree is sparse, I am sympathetic if they prefer to keep the sparseness, so such a change of default may be beneficial. Derrick, what do you think? > diff --git a/t/t5620-backfill.sh b/t/t5620-backfill.sh > index 91b5115732..a1a8d736db 100755 > --- a/t/t5620-backfill.sh > +++ b/t/t5620-backfill.sh > @@ -149,6 +149,21 @@ test_expect_success 'backfill --sparse' ' > test_line_count = 0 missing > ' > > +test_expect_success 'backfill auto-detects sparse-checkout from config' ' > + git clone --sparse --filter=blob:none \ > + --single-branch --branch=main \ > + "file://$(pwd)/srv.bare" backfill-auto-sparse && > + > + git -C backfill-auto-sparse rev-list --quiet --objects --missing=print HEAD >missing && > + test_line_count = 44 missing && > + > + GIT_TRACE2_EVENT="$(pwd)/auto-sparse-trace" git \ > + -C backfill-auto-sparse backfill && > + > + test_trace2_data promisor fetch_count 4 + test_trace2_data path-walk paths 5 +' > + > test_expect_success 'backfill --sparse without cone mode (positive)' ' > git clone --no-checkout --filter=blob:none \ > --single-branch --branch=main \