From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 542401F953 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2022 20:03:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S245459AbiAJUDV (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jan 2022 15:03:21 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:56054 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S243444AbiAJUDU (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jan 2022 15:03:20 -0500 Received: from mail-ed1-x535.google.com (mail-ed1-x535.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::535]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15552C06173F for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2022 12:03:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ed1-x535.google.com with SMTP id m4so16703834edb.10 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2022 12:03:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4UoRwy2QFx/NUyV7xjeb7AM0ZcdL5MFhppD7dYHlbjs=; b=NiuxH13P2YO0v3A5uhziu6RLTICM50bUYYzuWFzHXAU5PimCIPALGxeWVi1GnX4cFX cyj5kPlPDaLvHYvHCOc50FnFFL4+T0OMb5+dXN+eXFEjSQBbVfFzsyak51iQg/ixdfQw 2mcj88mayOP2ruaq6XJj/HAxcgYE7wnDqjWnDYvaE9BxnG9NPmGlkOAJ76NdpXxzx1e/ ZSNjxerL1k/5siGMgtA9D563uWXH2usgKketyiEuN6zHHoly+ZMIxwjG1osOBg7/2w/k VHMfA9fkXiwYdDu/+JXsoY/wN4su5PoQfidPkl+/2zGPmUFZjfHuB42pmBXyX+/FaNQ0 2nPQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4UoRwy2QFx/NUyV7xjeb7AM0ZcdL5MFhppD7dYHlbjs=; b=TKsA1ABrEvDaM0KR+jlQnQAoZfRMX4C/+mwMXxdnLNozujFE6XI39R9tlZmVVxEYeo BcxQ98SL20WhvUKSakg4qj4v9piWpqSwZPtgxAoY6/VBVMCp4t0cHcIVYVspKE70lSC0 XzeMmDrYOrvLznwH1aXwZaL8OSkWIy94XsSWT/8MV1guqd7BNtDp4TqHNGpKYFqPEw1L kUcOJjlb1zaoPsNMgqQEtE3z10V2SVqrNOfXi9yeGqXFrTarhl+QP73R9UR87uK4qhbj WKYAw2JHADIKNA6VyC7Zkg4fbPaEn7nQh7MKlogM3Bfzf4t5tpDWJ/PTk//XzbPnyDAB Ry4Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532lSCRfJgAQMFXc5EkDbib9Go9zcVqPEnK6YwNsDz73lWvi3Okk dAl4fFslNG+wM3ggxRG0jhqpK2hd+Ol1JFEPdwB1fRdnRdk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz+NSWczFFttIHmyyE59CG52secEC9a7ByGzbUQToHjj/Jij8/6+R7kBTnUiWiAfNihgU50FBw1UbP/GBrBBHU= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:5202:: with SMTP id s2mr1259513edd.206.1641844998546; Mon, 10 Jan 2022 12:03:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3b734f89c0f2f473d71a5d3c85faec6d48a0e350.1641317820.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> <159a35ba-7ed0-c601-15bd-54dfda460323@github.com> In-Reply-To: From: Elijah Newren Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2022 12:03:07 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] update-index: add tests for sparse-checkout compatibility To: Victoria Dye Cc: Victoria Dye via GitGitGadget , Git Mailing List , Derrick Stolee , Junio C Hamano Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 10:01 AM Victoria Dye wrote: > > Elijah Newren wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 7:47 AM Victoria Dye wrote: > >> > >> Elijah Newren wrote: > >>> On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 9:37 AM Victoria Dye via GitGitGadget > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> From: Victoria Dye > >>>> ... > > Sorry about that - when I wrote the first version of this series in the > `microsoft/git` fork, `git add` hadn't been updated to reject out-of-cone > untracked files as it is in [1]. It's my mistake for not double-checking > that it was still the case, apologies for wasting your time on re-explaining > this. No worries; there's lots of moving parts in the sparse world. > In any case, I'll update the test comment and commit message per your > suggestion: > > >>> I might buy that `git update-index` is lower level and should be > >>> considered the same as `git add --sparse`, but the comment should > >>> mention that and try to sell why update-index should be equivalent to > >>> that instead of to `git add`. > > I'm leaning only slightly towards the current behavior (and will update the > comment accordingly), but I'm happy to change it if the reasoning isn't as > strong as that of another approach. > > [1] 105e8b014b (add: fail when adding an untracked sparse file, 2021-09-24) I'm also leaning slightly towards keeping the current behavior and just updating the comment. ... > >> I understand why you find it buggy, but I am not making baseless assumptions > >> about the correctness (or lack thereof) of the current behavior. > > > > To be clear, the fact that the behavior was there for a decade would > > typically be basis enough for an assumption (in my opinion), and I > > wouldn't have faulted folks for making it. I might well have done so > > myself. My reasoning was just that I was getting confused by the > > negations and trying to understand the testcase, and when I started to > > unravel it, I found what looked like a possible inconsistency. > > > > Anyway, it's clear here you've actually dug a lot deeper and know the > > history here. In contrast, I was making assumptions about the history > > (and ones that weren't correct, though I'd argue my assumptions > > weren't baseless)... > > > > Your assumptions were completely valid, I apologize if my response came off > as implying otherwise. I'll try to use the comments on the tests to clarify > their behavior as much as possible, hopefully reducing some confusion around > all the multiple-negative flags & options. Oh, no, not at all. I was just worried that my earlier response might have come across poorly and could be read as criticizing assumptions I (incorrectly) _thought_ you were making. I wasn't sure if that was actually implied in your wording, but just to be careful I was just trying to specify that I think the level of effort of your submissions is totally appropriate -- even if you had been making the assumptions I thought you had been. And I was pointing out that I, after all, had made and will continue to make assumptions too. The point of review is getting a second pair of eyes, because they can help catch issues; and finding those issues often includes double-checking unspoken assumptions. Anyway, I think we're on the same page. Thanks for your hard work here; looking forward to seeing your reroll!