Re: [PATCH] sparse-checkout.txt: new document with sparse-checkout directions

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Sep 26, 2022, 17:38 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqwn9qox1z.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <pull.1367.git.1664064588846.gitgitgadget@gmail.com>

"Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:

> +    In the case of am and apply, those commands only operate on the
> +    working tree, so they are kind of in the same boat as stash.

"apply" does not touch the HEAD but it can touch the index; when it operates with the "--cached" or the "--index" option, it should not be considered as a working-tree-only command.

"am" is about recording what is in the patch as a commit.

> +    Perhaps `git am` could run `git sparse-checkout reapply`
> +    automatically afterward and move into a category more similar to
> +    merge/rebase/cherry-pick, but it'd still be weird because it'd
> +    vivify files besides just conflicted ones when there are conflicts.

I do not particularly think it is so bad.

How would we handle the case where the user modifies paths outside the sparse specification and makes a commit out of the result, without using "am"? We should be consistent with that use case, i.e.

    $ edit path/outside/sparse/specification
    $ git add path/outside/sparse/specification
    $ git commit

Do we require some "Yes, I am aware that I need to widen my sparse specification to do this, because I am now stepping out of it, and I understand that my sparse specification becomes wider after doing this operation" confirmation with "add" or "commit"? If not, then I think "am" should silently widen just like these commands. If they do, then "am" should also require such an option. Perhaps call it "--widen-sparse" or whatever.

By the way, I like the term "sparse specification" very much, as we should worry about non-cone mode as well. Please use it consistently in this document after getting a concensus that it is a good phrase to use from others---I saw some other words used after "sparse" elsewhere in this patch.

> +    In the case of ls-files, `git ls-files -t` is often used to see what
> +    is sparse and not, in which case restricting would not make sense.

I suspect that leaving it tree-wide would allow scripters come up with Porcelains that restricts to the sparse specification more easily.

Thanks.