Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> I see the issue of introducing a test-only option (when sparse index is >> integrated everywhere, shouldn't it be deprecated?). If there's a way to >> make this more obviously internal/temporary, I'm happy to modify it. Or, if >> semi-frequent updates of the command in the test aren't a huge issue, I can >> revert to V1. > > If it's a test-only capability you need, I'd say add it under > t/helpers/ somewhere, either a new flag for an existing subcommand of > test-tool, or a new subcommand for test-tool. Is the ability to force expanding to full index completely useless in the field? For diagnosing breakage the end-users may see in the wild, or perhaps in a specialist usecase for whatever reason working on full index is preferable and the user may want to force it once to correct an earlier mistake to enable sparse-index before toggling the configuration off, or something? If we do not foresee any such reason, I'd agree it is good to move that to t/helpers/; otherwise, I think update-index is as good as any other place, and the option will sit well next to other options like "--[no-]skip-worktree", "--[no-]assume-unchanged". It would most likely need to be used together with "--force-write-index" (or be made to imply the latter) to be useful, I suspect. Thanks.
