Re: Memory leak with sparse-checkout

[Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>]

On 9/20/2021 3:08 PM, Taylor Blau wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 01:27:25PM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote:
>> On 9/20/2021 1:25 PM, Derrick Stolee wrote:
>>> On 9/20/2021 12:42 PM, Taylor Blau wrote:
>>>> We would probably want to perform this check both during initialization,
>>>> and when adding patterns in cone mode. It may also be worthwhile to
>>>> check the validity of the cone before running 'list' or 'reapply', too.
>>>
>>> 'list' definitely seems like a good idea, since it is expecting different
>>> output than the literal patterns when cone mode is enabled.
>>
>> I double-checked this to see how to fix this, and the 'list' subcommand
>> already notices that the patterns are not in cone mode and reverts its
>> behavior to writing all of the sparse-checkout file to stdout. It also
>> writes warnings over stderr before that.
>>
>> There might not be anything pressing to do here.
> 
> Hmm. I think we'd probably want the same behavior for init and any other
> commands which could potentially overwrite the contents of the
> sparse-checkout file.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "the same behavior"?

Do you mean that "git sparse-checkout add X" should act as if cone mode
is not enabled if the existing patterns are not cone-mode patterns?

What exactly do you mean about "init" changing behavior here?
 
> Those may already call list routines internally, in which case I agree
> that this is already taken care of. But if not, then I think we should
> match list's behavior in the new locations, too.

"list" interprets the 'struct pattern_list' in two different ways,
depending on the use_cone_patterns member. They are static methods in
the builtin code, not used by anything else.

Thanks,
-Stolee