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=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 6383D1F86C for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 22:30:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732005AbgKYWOK (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Nov 2020 17:14:10 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:65006 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730459AbgKYWOJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Nov 2020 17:14:09 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FD118DE0A; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 17:14:07 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=ybEIlGJJcaCpu2bmzwo1/TenTlc=; b=EGN5SR r75+Q8EWDGO7JiDUN3q6DTO5eNY2Zh80+CIRiQtCPqZEN2mhGZS/dDAYw4ehBcw6 eKav+8G6LD56W7+HhN9geTZr03BnIUf9NpgfCIwYTeVXchajmHp95vEEY3dicZ/d OQ1KGhZuRelS8+xvy0N7Iu1Dz7p5EO+YlYmbU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=hhbnIDSj1wUf7L6vVSJlYShQsnpTzVhl toAOKCwhvHnd7xjjtA9aTfsjwyv0dei9yGTxHgYxrBh42wI3PvMGsn2TBab68GDR wV0AARSCx9h/4OXTybc5DyCLjnB3hga03RGSQp34KkCoSG2csm/TPUJxo2pbcyml XXzwNVBW/eQ= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6350D8DE09; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 17:14:07 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (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 C217B8DE08; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 17:14:06 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: "Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget" Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, matheus.bernardino@usp.br, dstolee@microsoft.com, Elijah Newren Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix stash apply in sparse checkouts (and a submodule test) References: Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 14:14:05 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget's message of "Fri, 20 Nov 2020 16:53:39 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 88CDF70C-2F6B-11EB-9D93-74DE23BA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org "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. Thanks.