On 7/20/2022 2:14 AM, Derrick Stolee wrote:
>> - if ((mode & SPARSE) &&
>> - (path_in_sparse_checkout(dst, &the_index))) {
>> - int dst_pos;
>> + if (ignore_sparse &&
>> + core_apply_sparse_checkout &&
>> + core_sparse_checkout_cone) {
>>
>> - dst_pos = cache_name_pos(dst, strlen(dst));
>> - active_cache[dst_pos]->ce_flags &= ~CE_SKIP_WORKTREE;
>> + /* from out-of-cone to in-cone */
>> + if ((mode & SPARSE) &&
>> + path_in_sparse_checkout(dst, &the_index)) {
>> + int dst_pos = cache_name_pos(dst, strlen(dst));
>> + struct cache_entry *dst_ce = active_cache[dst_pos];
>>
>> - if (checkout_entry(active_cache[dst_pos], &state, NULL,
NULL))
>> - die(_("cannot checkout %s"),
active_cache[dst_pos]->name);
>> + dst_ce->ce_flags &= ~CE_SKIP_WORKTREE;
>> +
>> + if (checkout_entry(dst_ce, &state, NULL, NULL))
>> + die(_("cannot checkout %s"), dst_ce->name);
>> + continue;
>> + }
>
> Here, it helps to ignore whitespace changes. This out to in was already
> handled by the existing implementation.
Yes, I think it would be better to let `diff` ignore the existing
implementation. Are you suggesting the `-w` (--ignore-all-space) option
of `diff`? I tried this option and it does not work. But another reason
is that there *are* some changes that are different from the original
out-to-in implementation, so even though it looks a bit messy, I think
it makes sense.
>> + /* from in-cone to out-of-cone */
>> + if ((dst_mode & SKIP_WORKTREE_DIR) &&
>
> This is disjoint from the other case (because of
!path_in_sparse_checkout()),
> so maybe we could short-circuit with an "else if" here? You could put
your
> comments about the in-to-out or out-to-in inside the if blocks.
I tried an else-if but it does clutter the code a bit. I think I'll
leave it as-is. Or do you mind show me a diff of your approach? To be
honest, this disjoint here looks logically cleaner to me.
--
Thanks,
Shaoxuan
