Matheus Tavares <matheus.bernardino@xxxxxx> writes: > Then, the test would become: > > setup_sparse_entry && > test-tool cached_mtime sparse_entry >before && > test-tool chmtime -60 sparse_entry && > git add --refresh sparse_entry && > test-tool cached_mtime sparse_entry >after && > test_cmp before after > > What do you think? I do not see much point in introducing a duplicated "ls-files --debug" that gives only a subset of its output. Even if we add test-tool, we would need to reserve the right to change its output format any time, so I am not sure what we'd be gaining by avoiding the use of existing one. Thanks.
