From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A7721836CB for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2024 18:16:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720030610; cv=none; b=vGm/C8gJdj8mf1+gpnQiP03ttSrWCu2vhE9+ykds6tt64XRx9qN2x46IOKL9HbrQ4navqzbHh4tcDk4m3XSJY88/vPBlu5oARXoMjSSOUGsQnbV6RSzM/lEQAbw2ie2FzWXJcJji1dBB5fRsMilLpepAofa/eRmzwOJ0nUVnlqA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720030610; c=relaxed/simple; bh=AuH0iM8Tv6E4dFZOqE0n3hHiFQeaf7b1P+Fg2S+BuJA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=pl3j/i4cIJC7+G7ce5IoLWF8fxsJXzyZsquulKRgA9CNByJY1KB0+eOgXfNjcxdN7FDYyju+xOiVkwYn5rwA0ShSgiVT/1VyLe2MmMU+JHy5B8HKQpuftWz9LvpfJyIqR4IqXAoK9FMVBJtL27stcxwPG71rEcWP5afOCH/2dWE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=GNEAUHNe; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="GNEAUHNe" Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BBA52BB0B; Wed, 3 Jul 2024 14:16:48 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=AuH0iM8Tv6E4dFZOqE0n3hHiFQeaf7b1P+Fg2S +BuJA=; b=GNEAUHNeYcTvu+jtjPjlIrxxe36PQXPkR4oIQDnc1MxcMoHgU5ZVq5 kp+n4X9EnAMMpADe6xTFsR8hvMyzPH2SNuC0/5orR8I6O40V6eWJl1EkIEGpKPna GbG9mkNXH3jx+MwuaqbUTWOE+TxuXAfA8Q43r0noE2vxaRoQZJ2TY= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13CD62BB0A; Wed, 3 Jul 2024 14:16:48 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.219.236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 72C802BB09; Wed, 3 Jul 2024 14:16:47 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: "Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, newren@gmail.com, vdye@github.com, Derrick Stolee Subject: Re: [PATCH] advice: warn when sparse index expands In-Reply-To: (Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget's message of "Wed, 03 Jul 2024 15:14:39 +0000") References: Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2024 11:16:46 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 6920D1E4-3968-11EF-865A-5B6DE52EC81B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com "Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" writes: > From: Derrick Stolee > > Typically, forcing a sparse index to expand to a full index means that > Git could not determine the status of a file outside of the > sparse-checkout and needed to expand sparse trees into the full list of > sparse blobs. This operation can be very slow when the sparse-checkout > is much smaller than the full tree at HEAD. > > When users are in this state, it is common that 'git status' will report > the problem. Usually there is a modified or untracked file outside of > the sparse-checkout mentioned by the 'git status' output. There are a > number of reasons why this is insufficient: Nicely written to explain why giving an advice message is a good idea to cover this situation. Making it possible to squelch comes with no cost (once the code to do so is written), so I do not have a huge problem with the use of advise_if_enabled(), but I offhand do not know if the users would ever want to squelch it. Is this something that users would choose to say "yes, I know what I am doing is making my sparse working tree unusuably slow and I've heard how to whip my sparse working tree into a better shape already---please do not tell it to me ever again; because I need to leave these crufts outside the sparse cone anyway, I am willing to accept the unusually slow response, overhead, and wasted cycles and power" to? Other than that, nicely done.