Re: [PATCH 1/1] sparse-checkout: list folders in cone mode

[Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>]

On 12/26/2019 4:17 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> From: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
> 
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] sparse-checkout: list folders in cone mode
> s/folder/directory/ everywhere as the rest of Git.
> 
>> When core.sparseCheckoutCone is enabled, the 'git sparse-checkout set'
>> command taks a list of folders as input, then creates an ordered
> 
> "takes"

Good catch.

>> list of sparse-checkout patterns such that those folders are
>> recursively included and all sibling blobs along the parent folders
> 
> In this sentence, what does a "blob" really mean?  Do you mean a
> filesystem entity, that is not a folder, that is immediately
> contained in the "parent folder" (in other words, regular files
> and symbolic links)?

You're right, I'm using strange wording here. How about "sibling
entries"?

> How would this interact with a submodule by the way?

I just checked with the Git repo by running:

	git submodule init
	git submodule update
	git sparse-checkout init --cone

The working directory then contains all blobs at root AND the
sha1collisiondetection submodule. Interesting that the sparse-
checkout feature ignores submodules. That seems like the best
approach since the user can already enlist in a subset of the
submodules.

>> are also included. Listing the patterns is less user-friendly than the
>> folders themselves.
>>
>> In cone mode, and as long as the patterns match the expected cone-mode
>> pattern types, change the output of 'git sparse-checkout list' to only
>> show the folders that created the patterns.
>> ...
>> +In the cone mode case, the `git sparse-checkout list` subcommand will list the
>> +folders that define the recursive patterns. For the example sparse-checkout file
>> +above, the output is as follows:
>> +
>> +--------------------------
>> +$ git sparse-checkout list
>> +A/B/C
>> +--------------------------
>> +
> 
> Sounds like a worthwhile usability improvement.
 
Thanks,
-Stolee