On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:03 AM Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 2:17 PM Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget > <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > The point of this series is to insert protections for the consumers of the > > in-memory index. We mark certain regions of code as needing a full index, so > > we call ensure_full_index() to expand a sparse index to a full one, if > > necessary. These protections are inserted file-by-file in every loop over > > all cache entries. Well, "most" loops, because some are going to be handled > > in the very next series so I leave them out. ... > > However, after this series is complete, we now have a straight-forward plan > > for making commands "sparse aware" one-by-one: > > > > 1. Disable settings.command_requires_full_index to allow an in-memory > > sparse-index. > > 2. Run versions of that command under a debugger, breaking on > > ensure_full_index(). > > 3. Examine the call stack to determine the context of that expansion, then > > implement the proper behavior in those locations. > > 4. Add tests to ensure we are checking this logic in the presence of sparse > > directory entries. > ... > If I'm confused about the goals and the plans, then my reviews will > probably be less than helpful, so I'll suspend reading the series > until I understand the plan a little better. Thanks for patiently responding to all my other queries. I read through more of the series today. I inserted comments on a couple specific patches, but most of patches 6-25 are all along the same theme. I have some overall comments on those patches in 6-25 (none of which need to be addressed in this series, but are meant as hopefully helpful guides about future work): add/rm: both of these were just above loops that had a skip-the-SKIP_WORKTREE entries, at least once Matheus' series is merged (https://lore.kernel.org/git/cover.1615588108.git.matheus.bernardino@xxxxxx/). I think the upshot is just that these become easier to convert. checkout/commit -- I think these follow the add/rm model and likewise become easy to convert. ls-files - I commented elsewhere in this thread about how I think it'd make sense to have it list the entries in the index, as always. Obviously, that'd give different output than a full index, because there are different entries present in the index when using a sparse-index vs. a full one. However, all of these, as you say, can wait until later. I also noted that patches 26 and 27 were based on ones from the RFC series that I reviewed before, and I noticed you fixed an issue or two I flagged there, but you also made some other changes and it's too late at night for my brain to continue thinking and try to compare them; I may try again tomorrow. Other than patch 26 which I'm too tired to think through right now, and the patches I specifically commented on, the rest of the series looks good to me.
