On 3/17/2021 2:28 PM, Elijah Newren wrote: > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 6:28 AM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason > <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> From: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> So we have a test tool that's mostly ls-files but mocks the output >> ls-tree would emit, won't these tests eventually care about what stage >> things are in? >> >> What follows is an RFC series on top that's the result of me wondering >> why if we're adding new index constructs we aren't updating our >> plumbing to emit that data, can we just add this to ls-files and drop >> this test helper? >> >> Turns out: Yes we can. > > I like the idea of having ls-files be usable to show the entries that > are in the index; that seems great to me. I very much dislike the > --sparse flag to ls-files, as noted on that commit. I don't like this idea. I don't think exposing internal structures like this is something we want to do so quickly. Further, I intend to use this test tool in the future to _also_ show the stored stat() data, which would be inappropriate here in ls-files. I would prefer to continue using the test helper here and leave functional changes to ls-files be considered independently. Thanks, -Stolee
