Re: [PATCH] Provide config option to expect files outside sparse patterns

["Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Feb 21 2022, Elijah Newren wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 12:34 PM Johannes Schindelin
> <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Elijah,
>>
>> In addition to Stolee's feedback...
>>
>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2022, Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget wrote:
>>
>> > diff --git a/config.c b/config.c
>> > index 2bffa8d4a01..68e877a1d80 100644
>> > --- a/config.c
>> > +++ b/config.c
>> > @@ -1520,6 +1520,11 @@ static int git_default_core_config(const char *var, const char *value, void *cb)
>> >               return 0;
>> >       }
>> >
>> > +     if (!strcmp(var, "core.expectfilesoutsidesparsepatterns")) {
>> > +             core_expect_files_outside_sparse_patterns = git_config_bool(var, value);
>> > +             return 0;
>> > +     }
>>
>> The `core` section is already quite crowded (for which I am partially
>> responsible, of course).
>>
>> Maybe it would be a good idea to introduce the `sparse` section, using
>> `sparse.allowFilesMatchingPatterns` or `sparse.applyPatternsToWorktree =
>> false`?
>
> That's a fair point.  At one point Stolee wanted to change from
> core.sparse* to sparse.* -- but by that point we already had users and
> would have had to deal with a bit of a migration story (and wondering
> what to do if people had both old and new config variables set
> inconsistently).
>
> I'm not sure if it's optimal to try to keep the sparse settings
> together (thus put new ones under core), or try to avoid filling core.
> I guess if we moved towards sparse.* now, it might be an easier
> migration story if we only have two options to move.  And besides,
> we're already split between multiple sections with
> extensions.worktreeConfig, core.sparseCheckout{,Cone}, and
> index.sparse already...so maybe adding one more section would be par
> for the course.  ;-)
>
> So, I'm leaning towards sparse.expectFilesOutsideOfPatterns, but I'd
> like to hear Stolee's thoughts too.

Yes, maybe sparse.* etc. is best. I'm fine with whatever you two come up
with.

I just wanted to raise the point that it's less important to consider
names/namespaces for variables one-by-one, and more important that all
the variables in a "family" fit well together, the users can find them
all in one place etc. (ideally, not always possible).