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: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40F361F51E for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 17:49:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="nPuRVM0C"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230514AbiIZRtU (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2022 13:49:20 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53694 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230503AbiIZRtA (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2022 13:49:00 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (pb-smtp2.pobox.com [64.147.108.71]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 595D41036 for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 10:20:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B5CE15B86A; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 13:20:44 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=QON2l5s1kjJhQ1Q3TM7k/JKQGu5tn/UaG2faK8 4dgek=; b=nPuRVM0C6YMAFlypYIv4HAMbqi9mQUSURF58zxx1HKCyfI7o6Rdlmn L2e12W63XAHjL3Ey+tzJ47Po0qNJJkN9nPFQt/iw1kk0+S928e+N/5/QuW2q8pO2 CTQkCFzHSagVm+ZYV7esJ28wLLmrIrHdFaf+piFrWNLuNUsJr/tU4= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72F5D15B869; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 13:20:44 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.83.5.33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CC81015B868; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 13:20:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: "Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget" Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Victoria Dye , Derrick Stolee , Shaoxuan Yuan , Matheus Tavares , ZheNing Hu , Elijah Newren Subject: Re: [PATCH] sparse-checkout.txt: new document with sparse-checkout directions References: Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2022 10:20:42 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget's message of "Sun, 25 Sep 2022 00:09:48 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 8D64BAE4-3DBF-11ED-9035-307A8E0A682E-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org "Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget" writes: > From: Elijah Newren > > Once upon a time, Matheus wrote some patches to make > git grep [--cached | ] ... > restrict its output to the sparsity specification when working in a > sparse checkout[1]. That effort got derailed by two things: > > (1) The --sparse-index work just beginning which we wanted to avoid > creating conflicts for > (2) Never deciding on flag and config names and planned high level > behavior for all commands. > > More recently, Shaoxuan implemented a more limited form of Matheus' > patches that only affected --cached, using a different flag name, > but also changing the default behavior in line with what Matheus did. > This again highlighted the fact that we never decided on command line > flag names, config option names, and the big picture path forward. > > The --sparse-index work has been mostly complete (or at least released > into production even if some small edges remain) for quite some time > now. We have also had several discussions on flag and config names, > though we never came to solid conclusions. Stolee once upon a time > suggested putting all these into some document in > Documentation/technical[3], which Victoria recently also requested[4]. > I'm behind the times, but here's a patch attempting to finally do that. > > Note that the "Implementation Questions" section is pretty large, > reflecting the fact that this is perhaps more RFC than proposal. Thanks for starting this. The document even in the current iteration with a large set of "questions" helped me refresh my memory on where we are in the bigger picture, and will offer us a good frame of reference.