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-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,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED, 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 365351F86C for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 05:35:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2387775AbgKZFcI (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Nov 2020 00:32:08 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39242 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2387771AbgKZFcI (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Nov 2020 00:32:08 -0500 Received: from mail-ot1-x342.google.com (mail-ot1-x342.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::342]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F354C0613D4 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 21:32:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ot1-x342.google.com with SMTP id h19so928724otr.1 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 21:32:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=TI9ig6wJ8x+QhxtCG56HAwPQx4H8ERVxYN5KwAgmNpQ=; b=rHZLGxzYIzAu46vfmboonbaw3tF0hQJ5puv1k88rvfhdQT9+3O553qE/YuiCPc1C5I YtA9jYkOsQ0wbd273t9UriViTggwptHZ4lDakQleLkBbkv0u6IpWlrHInn+w51/n8TjM jJAiXZvkuF0akcqiLAmKqB1oLWgcqvuTcSbT4V9lCYh6qXXlTa1n2TK35o1Lh/R0e3NW KRm5EL6HzmFFqW4TdWmRrHYmLjpnO3EeDh5QpavK26vU2BJ/+i8xOcj34a4XKuLj/KJB 9WfSZwhMjL7LwC4zzSwgRn4OFJneiGoDLd6TCopndntHfT0k9zEm/RbiWB3ggmWboonK foAw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TI9ig6wJ8x+QhxtCG56HAwPQx4H8ERVxYN5KwAgmNpQ=; b=rm+KkaWw/InOTnWCWwA320kr176O95L7CQ+dw7IiVGs08MRpVBaZGFQQASqc/zoLYd Ad8p6C0YvPXjysI+M5Ut7MQwMsUe/BIUsNWcdC+5AaCZjc/zdSFTaqC2oBzPFGRymw73 G4m0H3EaJOCdPKhs9OTl9aFxi4MsZTvRNOOnGHGUdxOrMm0Wfag1Q8Lia2WHgnobfFxl tLBIbVv23arU+G5dVI4HjGK5swN3/0eBwXW4ho/PvYTij/4Y1EmdKme3MLG+VrbAH5Iv h7lQnZoBqNrOQJOwRWbTb/T9fhDnbMG4fUxLGo2NeYz7YRE8OIPFb0JnixwlGFtsjPxf 4D0w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531PHDlqRqEMkEcVQSrRhFgDgrWKBEveS52NTHO+csFQFsb3xQJ0 gpR+JkLmzU2nWW7GZxpPDOpE+9wpCO+vyfAR8mE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwl7zEamwMob9q2vIp/DFzZ21Prdytvww6Q2iOXpmGvHcPoshc/KwJ3sz4YbwGwZ02M/G7QH4EiYsbNhhsmFy4= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:365:: with SMTP id 92mr1230614otv.345.1606368727744; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 21:32:07 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Elijah Newren Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 21:31:56 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix stash apply in sparse checkouts (and a submodule test) To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget , Git Mailing List , Matheus Tavares Bernardino , Derrick Stolee Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 2:14 PM Junio C Hamano wrote: > > "Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget" writes: > > > Heavier usage of sparse-checkouts at $DAYJOB is commencing. And an issue > > with git stash apply was found. > > > > git stash's implementation as a pipeline of forked commands presents some > > problems, especially when implemented atop of three commands that all behave > > differently in the presence of sparse checkouts. Add a testcase > > demonstrating some issues with git stash apply in a repository with a > > different set of sparse-checkout patterns at apply vs create time, clean up > > the relevant section of git stash code, and incidentally fix a submodule > > testcase unrelated to sparse checkouts. Provide some detailed commit > > messages explaining the issues along the way. > > > > NOTE: I found a couple minor issues with other commands in sparse checkouts > > while debugging this issue, but I don't yet have fixes for them and I can > > submit them separately. > > Any comments on this from reviewers? The second patch is a but too > busy looking and I am having a bit of trouble convincing myself that > it is doing the right thing. Hmm, that diff is a little hard to read. It's a removal of two functions, and an addition of a new one, but the way the diff reads it looks like I'm modifying the existing functions because it catches some comment line markers and thinks they're similar. Maybe it'd be easier to read if I inserted that function elsewhere in the file? I'll send a re-roll with that and add a comment or two to help explain it (as well as fix up the small issues Chris highlighted).