On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 9:07 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Oh, wow, that's something completely outside what I had considered. I
> > had viewed sparse-checkouts as splitting "tracked files" into two
> > subsets. As such, `--[no-]restrict` could only affect selecting
> > whether the smaller or larger set of tracked files was of interest.
> > From that viewpoint, untracked files seemed orthogonal, and thus there
> > couldn't be such a thing as an "anamalous untracked file".
> >
> > But this idea is very interesting. Hmm...
>
> We need to design the behaviour of "git add" sensibly. Even we say
> "untracked files are just one class and there are two classes of
> tracked ones, those path of current interest and those that are
> uninteresting", we would need to say "'git add F' behaves this way
> if F would become 'tracked path of current interest' when added, but
> the command behaves this other way if F becomes 'tracked path that
> is not interesting right now'". It may be cleaner to separate the
> untracked ones along the same line as the tracked ones.
>
> Which in turn would mean that the skip-worktree bit cannot be the
> source of truth. Sparsity specification (either pattern matching or
> being in listed directories) authoritatively decides if a path is of
> the current interest or not. This is simply because untracked ones
> cannot have that bit ;-) We can treat the skip-worktree bit as mere
> implementation detail, a measure for optimization.
I like this idea. Seems I should then move 'status' into the category
with add/rm/mv -- commands that need to be modified to treat untracked
files carefully.
Of course, this also may drag "git clean" into that category...though
I'm not sure how or if it'd differ.
[...]
> > It feels like "git grep --cached" is perhaps the next thing along this
> > sequence, and I don't see a clear line where to draw that we should
> > limit things to the sparse specification for the index while treating
> > the other operations as full tree; it seems like something feels
> > broken or inconsistent in this sequence of commands if we attempt to
> > do so.
>
> OK, it seems that "--cached" has many cases that it wants to operate
> on full tree. I am in general more in favor of making things work
> on full tree, simply because I feel it would have less chance of
> going wrong, so defaulting to --no-restrict would be fine ;-)
Yeah, I think for the camp B folks, "--no-restrict" may make more
sense for operations searching or comparing to the index.
However, there's also another possibility I'm still mulling over. To
understand it, first note that relative to the working tree, the
"sparse specification" can temporarily differ from the "paths matching
the sparsity patterns", because additional files might be transiently
present. This most often happens due to conflicts, and we want
worktree related operations that behave under "restrict" mode (such as
"diff" or "grep" or "switch") to operate on all present tracked
files[1]. With that understanding, we could similarly consider that
relative to the index, the "sparse specification" could temporarily
differ from the "paths matching the sparsity patterns", because
additional paths outside the sparsity patterns could have been
modified in the index (e.g. during a merge or rebase or whatever).
Using a temporarily expanded sparsity specification may allow a
"restrict-like" behavior to make sense for index-related operations.
I currently think that'd be more useful for the camp A folks than the
camp B folks, though.
Either way, I don't think the index should use the sparsity defined by
or for the working tree. The idea of using the working tree sparsity
for index-related operations may sound nice at first, but I think it
only behaves well when all paths modified in the index or working tree
are limited to those paths matching the sparsity patterns. And
there's too many normal cases where that just doesn't hold.
[1] See also 82386b4496 ("Merge branch 'en/present-despite-skipped'",
2022-03-09)
