Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > And yes, I believe that make_cache_entry() and add_index_entry_with_check() > are the only places that need this internal version. If we find others, > then we can add them as necessary. The tests in t1092 are getting rather > robust, although they don't do much for this test case: >> +test_expect_success 'stash -u ignores sub-repository' ' >> + test_when_finished "rm -rf sub-repo" && >> + git init sub-repo && >> + git stash -u >> +' > > Seems like a good test to have, anyway. > > I look forward to seeing this as a full patch. Just one thing I want to pick your brains for ;-) I said this earlier ... >>> "git update-index" should never allow to create a "tree" kind of >>> cache entry (making it sparse again should be the task of systems >>> internal, and should not be done by end-user feeding a pre-shrunk >>> "tree" kind of entry to record a sparsely populated state, if I >>> understand correctly), so its call to verify_path(), if it ends with >>> a directory separator, should say "that's not a good path". ... without knowing what you had in mind when you did the "tree kind of entry in the index". Are we on the same page, or do we think it might be beneficial to give end-users a long-enough rope to hang themselves, aka get into the lower details of implementation? One _could_ imagine that allowing $ git update-index --cacheinfo 40000,609869396314577e5a,t/ given by the end user to drop all entries under t/* and replace them with a single sparse-dir-entry might be a good way to allow scripters the same power as the C-code to take advantage of the sparse checkout feature. It needs to be paired with some mechanism to allow sparse-dir-entry observed by the end users with a plumbing, e.g. even though ls-files unconditionally calls ensure_full_index(), $ git ls-files --show-sparse may show the sparse-dir-entry by bypassing the call. Thanks.
