Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 8/8] --sparse for porcelains

From: Jakub Narebski <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 01:37:24 +0200

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jakub Narebski <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
>>>> Hmmm... this looks like either argument for introducing --full option
>>>>  to git-checkout (ignore CE_VALID bit, checkout everything, and clean
>>>>  CE_VALID (?))...
>>>>
>>>>  ...or for going with _separate_ bit for partial checkout, like in the
>>>>  very first version of this series, which otherwise functions like
>>>>  CE_VALID, or is just used to mark that CE_VALID was set using sparse.
> 
> How would a separate bit help?  Just like you need to clear CE_VALID bit
> to revert the index into a normal (or "non sparse") state somehow, you
> would need to have a way to clear that separate bit anyway.
> 
> A separate bit would help only if you want to handle assume-unchanged and
> sparse checkout independently. But my impression was that the recent lstat
> reduction effort addressed the issue assume-unchanged were invented to
> work around in the first place.

Well, if we assume that we don't need (don't want) to handle
assume-unchanged and sparse checkout independently, then of course the
idea of having separate or additional bit for sparse doesn't make sense.
 
-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland