| Message ID | 20220331091755.385961-1-shaoxuan.yuan02@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | mv: fix out-of-cone file/directory move logic | expand |
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 5:20 PM Shaoxuan Yuan <shaoxuan.yuan02@gmail.com> wrote: > > Before integrating 'mv' with sparse-index, I still find some possibly buggy > UX when 'mv' is interacting with 'sparse-checkout'. > > So I kept sparse-index off in order to sort things out without a sparse index. > We can proceed to integrate with sparse-index once these changes are solid. > > Note that this patch is tentative, and still have known glitches, but it > illustrates a general approach that I intended to harmonize 'mv' > with 'sparse-checkout'. > > Shaoxuan Yuan (4): > mv: check if out-of-cone file exists in index with SKIP_WORKTREE bit > mv: add check_dir_in_index() and solve general dir check issue > mv: add advise_to_reapply hint for moving file into cone > t7002: add tests for moving out-of-cone file/directory > > builtin/mv.c | 76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > t/t7002-mv-sparse-checkout.sh | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 142 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > base-commit: 805e0a68082a217f0112db9ee86a022227a9c81b > -- > 2.35.1 > The original related RFC patch is [1], and this patch should be --in-reply-to [2]. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/20220315100145.214054-1-shaoxuan.yuan02@gmail.com/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/git/97a665fe-07c9-c4f6-4ab6-b6c0e1397c31@github.com/
Shaoxuan Yuan wrote: > Before integrating 'mv' with sparse-index, I still find some possibly buggy > UX when 'mv' is interacting with 'sparse-checkout'. > > So I kept sparse-index off in order to sort things out without a sparse index. > We can proceed to integrate with sparse-index once these changes are solid. > > Note that this patch is tentative, and still have known glitches, but it > illustrates a general approach that I intended to harmonize 'mv' > with 'sparse-checkout'. > Thanks for working out some ways to make 'mv' behave more nicely with sparse checkouts! I did my best to address some of the specific implementation questions you had in your commit messages. Beyond that, my main points of feedback (beyond some formatting nits and implementation questions) are: * Patch 2 deals with sparse directories, which won't show up until you enable sparse index; since you can't test that yet, you should save the patch for your "sparse index integration" series. * Patch 4 should either be moved to the beginning of the series (with the tests flagged with 'test_expect_failure' until the patch that fixes the associated behavior), or split up with the tests associated with a change moved into the patch that makes that change. And, as always, I'm happy to answer any questions and/or clarify weird behavior you encounter while making changes to this (or subsequent) series! > Shaoxuan Yuan (4): > mv: check if out-of-cone file exists in index with SKIP_WORKTREE bit > mv: add check_dir_in_index() and solve general dir check issue > mv: add advise_to_reapply hint for moving file into cone > t7002: add tests for moving out-of-cone file/directory > > builtin/mv.c | 76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > t/t7002-mv-sparse-checkout.sh | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 142 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > base-commit: 805e0a68082a217f0112db9ee86a022227a9c81b
On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 6:21 AM Victoria Dye <vdye@github.com> wrote: > Thanks for working out some ways to make 'mv' behave more nicely with sparse > checkouts! I did my best to address some of the specific implementation > questions you had in your commit messages. Beyond that, my main points of > feedback (beyond some formatting nits and implementation questions) are: > > * Patch 2 deals with sparse directories, which won't show up until you > enable sparse index; since you can't test that yet, you should save the > patch for your "sparse index integration" series. > * Patch 4 should either be moved to the beginning of the series (with the > tests flagged with 'test_expect_failure' until the patch that fixes the > associated behavior), or split up with the tests associated with a change > moved into the patch that makes that change. > > And, as always, I'm happy to answer any questions and/or clarify weird > behavior you encounter while making changes to this (or subsequent) series! Hi Victoria, Thanks a lot for the detailed and informative feedback, they are incredibly helpful to guide me through this first attempt! I have read them all and am preparing corresponding fixes :-)
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 5:20 PM Shaoxuan Yuan <shaoxuan.yuan02@gmail.com> wrote: > > Before integrating 'mv' with sparse-index, I still find some possibly buggy > UX when 'mv' is interacting with 'sparse-checkout'. > > So I kept sparse-index off in order to sort things out without a sparse index. > We can proceed to integrate with sparse-index once these changes are solid. > > Note that this patch is tentative, and still have known glitches, but it > illustrates a general approach that I intended to harmonize 'mv' > with 'sparse-checkout'. > > Shaoxuan Yuan (4): > mv: check if out-of-cone file exists in index with SKIP_WORKTREE bit > mv: add check_dir_in_index() and solve general dir check issue > mv: add advise_to_reapply hint for moving file into cone > t7002: add tests for moving out-of-cone file/directory > > builtin/mv.c | 76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > t/t7002-mv-sparse-checkout.sh | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 142 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > base-commit: 805e0a68082a217f0112db9ee86a022227a9c81b > -- > 2.35.1 > Hi, to whom it may concern, I'm writing to say that I'm making useful (possibly) progress on this topic. I've been busy composing a GSoC proposal last week, so the progress paused for a while. And I'm going to have a trip for around a week, starting next week, so I may not have enough time next week to push forward on this topic. But I will always be available through email ;-) -- Thanks & Regards, Shaoxuan