Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> It is a bit unintuitive, but '--sparse' is already used to mean "operate on >> SKIP_WORKTREE entries (i.e., pretend the repo isn't a sparse-checkout)" in >> both 'add' (0299a69694 (add: implement the --sparse option, 2021-09-24)) and >> 'rm' (f9786f9b85 (rm: add --sparse option, 2021-09-24)). The >> 'checkout-index' option '--ignore-skip-worktree-bits' indicates similar >> behavior (and is, IMO, similarly confusing with its use of "ignore"). OK, I forgot about these precedents. "ignore skip worktree bits" is quite a mouthful, but expresses what is going on quite clearly. Instead of honoring the skip-worktree bit, behave as if they are not set, so we bust the "sparse" boundary. > The existing pattern here means that it isn't Shaoxuan's responsibility > to pick a better name, but if we are interested in changing the name, > then we have some work to replace the previous '--sparse' options with > that name. I could do that replacement, assuming we land on a better name > and are willing to have that change of behavior. It all depends on how deeply the existing "--sparse" are anchored in users' minds. If we have been with them for nearly a year and three major releases, it is too late to casually "fix" without a proper transition strategy, I am afraid. And I am not even sure if it is worth the trouble. In any case, let's leave it totally outside the scope of the topic. As long as we are consistently unintuitive with "--sparse", then I think we are OK, because users are malleable and can easily get used to anything as long as it is consistent ;-) Thanks.
