Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > If a user is in a conflict state and modifies their sparse-checkout > cone, then we will hit this "recompute the cache-tree" state, fail, > and cause full index expansion. I think that combination (have a > conflict AND modify sparse-checkout cone) is rare enough to not > optimize for (yet). > > Does that make the situation more clear? Yes. "AND modify sparse-checkout cone" part was what I was missing. I didn't see it because it wasn't there at all in the code that was removed or added---it comes from the fact that the user is running the "sparse-checkout" command in the first place, and that was what I missed. Thanks.
