On 10/5/2019 8:30 PM, Elijah Newren wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 3:44 PM Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 3:07 PM Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
>> <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> +static int write_patterns_and_update(struct pattern_list *pl)
>>> +{
>>> + char *sparse_filename;
>>> + FILE *fp;
>>> +
>>> + sparse_filename = get_sparse_checkout_filename();
>>> + fp = fopen(sparse_filename, "w");
>>> + write_patterns_to_file(fp, pl);
>>> + fclose(fp);
>>> + free(sparse_filename);
>>> +
>>> + clear_pattern_list(pl);
>>
>> It seems slightly odd that pl is passed in but cleared in this
>> function rather than in the caller that created pl. Should this be
>> moved to the caller, or, alternatively, a comment added to explain
>> this side-effect for future callers of the function?
>>
>> The rest of the patch looked good to me.
>
> Actually, thought of something else. What if the user calls 'git
> sparse-checkout set ...' without first calling 'git sparse-checkout
> init'? Should that report an error to the user, a suggestion to
> follow it up with 'sparse-checkout init', or should it just call
> sc_set_config() behind the scenes and allow bypassing the init
> subcommand?
Maybe a warning would suffice. I still think the workflow of the
following is most correct, and not difficult to recommend:
* "git sparse-checkout init [--cone]" -OR- "git clone --sparse"
* git sparse-checkout set [stuff]
* git sparse-checkout disable
Thanks,
-Stolee
