On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 7:34 AM Matheus Tavares Bernardino <matheus.bernardino@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:24 PM Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > If someone were > > to try do change their sparsity patterns or even just run a "git > > sparse-checkout reapply" when they had the above issues, they'd see > > something like: > > > > $ git sparse-checkout reapply > > warning: The following paths are unmerged and were left despite > > sparse patterns: > > filename_with_conflicts > > > > After fixing the above paths, you may want to run `git > > sparse-checkout reapply`. > > > > This basically suggests that we consider uncommitted and unmerged > > files to be "unclean" in some way (sparse-checkout wants to set the > > SKIP_WORKTREE bit on all files that do not match the sparsity > > specification, so "clean" means sparse-checkout is able to do so). So > > I could amend my earlier comparison and say that IF the user has a > > clean directory, then "git grep --recurse-submodules $REVISION > > $PATTERN" should be equivalent to "git checkout $REVISION && git grep > > --recurse-submodules $PATTERN". I could also say that given the big > > warnings we give users when we can't set the SKIP_WORKTREE bit, that > > we expect it to be a transient state and thus that we expect them to > > more likely than not clear it out by the time they do switch branches. > > That would lead us to the follow-up rule that if the user does not > > have a clean directory then "git grep --recurse-submodules $REVISION > > $PATTERN" should be equivalent to what you would get if the unclean > > entries were ignored (expecting them to be cleaned before the any `git > > checkout` could be run) and you then otherwise ran "git checkout > > $REVISION && git grep --recurse-submodules $PATTERN". > > Makes sense, thanks! We haven't mentioned "git grep --cached" yet, but > it would behave in the same way of the worktree grep, in this case. > (I.e. searching the submodules, as their SKIP_WORTREE bit was not > set.) So I guess it should be fine, as well. :-) > > That suggests that grep's implementation we agreed on earlier is still > > correct (when given a $REVISION ignore submodulees that do not match > > the sparsity patterns), but that unpack-trees/sparse-checkout still > > need an update: > > > > When we notice an initialized submodule that does not match the > > sparsity patterns, we should print a warning just like we do for > > unmerged and dirty entries. > > Yeah, seems like a good approach. Thanks for the explanations. Some of > the test cases in mt/grep-sparse-checkout will have to be adjusted > with this change. Should I reroll the series based on the patch you > will send or do you prefer to adjust them in your patch (and make it > dependent on mt/grep-sparse-checkout)? Ah, good catch. Your series came first, is longer, and is reviewed other than the submodule/config stuff that needs someone more familiar with that area than me. Since my patch needs more work anyway, how about I rebase my patch on top of your work, and make sure to ping you as a reviewer to make sure I don't mess anything up? Thanks, Elijah
