Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 9/8/2022 1:59 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Shaoxuan Yuan <shaoxuan.yuan02@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> + >>> + /* >>> + * NEEDSWORK: when reading a submodule, the sparsity settings in the >>> + * superproject are incorrectly forgotten or misused. For example: >>> + * >>> + * 1. "command_requires_full_index" >>> + * When this setting is turned on for `grep`, only the superproject >>> + * knows it. All the submodules are read with their own configs >>> + * and get prepare_repo_settings()'d. Therefore, these submodules >>> + * "forget" the sparse-index feature switch. As a result, the index >>> + * of these submodules are expanded unexpectedly. >> ... > I think this comment is misplaced. It should either be contained in > the commit message or placed closer to this diff hunk: OK, so given what you wrote below, except for such a minor shuffling, the current series is ready to go? Thanks. > ... > Shaoxuan's comment is attempting to list the reasons why submodules > do not currently work with sparse-index, and specifically that we > can add tests that _should_ exercise this code in a meaningful way, > but because of the current limitations of the codebase, the code > isn't actually exercised in that scenario. > > In order to actually create a test that demonstrates how submodules > and sparse-checkout work with this logic, we need to do some serious > refactoring of the sparse-checkout logic to care about the repository > struct, along with some other concerns specifically around the sparse > index. This doesn't seem appropriate for the GSoC timeline or even for > just this topic.
