From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F8F3C04A95 for ; Wed, 28 Sep 2022 07:51:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233921AbiI1Hvn (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Sep 2022 03:51:43 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:47150 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233817AbiI1HvS (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Sep 2022 03:51:18 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-x22a.google.com (mail-lj1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A944D1893AE for ; Wed, 28 Sep 2022 00:50:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id q17so13400858lji.11 for ; Wed, 28 Sep 2022 00:50:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=+cCy5xdHN1hhZGfwI6ABX9yd+Himq/uZPdYfM5ly8JM=; b=WMPXNZtwOijgCN1oirUlM3oU9rrqHoYS2Q9uVmbrx25REmdpWXDPOyMHHzjb1822/J FXEvQ0AqJA9AooB9o1vSOGJoEoTdJazdSKg106tYW08nyz+y6PN1IwOY4p22ZldT2qi7 Elu3m2v1m5eGlhhwSV37Kp/5yFD35EXu8SkYVD4autnb4lk4BtWUifNcpZ5+tyoUu6Ws ehLPhUSpKkrikwz7eSxBiDK1nZaYthdSlpCzKzKmkfiY+S6wWJH84okcxhpC3a8NhHk2 sKOHNgo2fs3USVGVUb/Hj/5CNyqLHh6HtUfz1zdjNrTEx7JTGYZBGCoiNBHMIlTacaEl iIag== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=+cCy5xdHN1hhZGfwI6ABX9yd+Himq/uZPdYfM5ly8JM=; b=DOS0eB3luDgp619L4MBsQqz+2u4oMtEA0TPLXH3hYHvVpae2xwJbRgilL6ioCSjuG2 vhsJPv8B833SKABHdl4uuXVlP0vmEIBrxYgtfzyzaqVRVkrh9Ioen4D9Bi/oWyRBWQiu GMJydNuu5Xp8AOVkTLzUR/Nu4d0gh3QqS35f6Cyxp4Xl/JCoCES7Els/bHpsca/AtPoD UNJuQ99x/wB+arLhDdk8ofNi5n38XTafARoTYdaURS0tduVfLTVBz1hOC/aCRawueL6p pMBxC9cQcGRvQCfHfDhQZw7cGBHrRVOq25fFPfUZX0BHIKu6pK5EOb2RCUbwQw6Oii1w VPeA== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1dCxNEMEklybN36oLeqqDbSSKwM1LXGeWuP9W4aMH5PnfDGd3T s8he4eM/hZn0HKCECnLjqRPrmrFNrZKjU+LD7r4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM5djLCqwDIK3KoAL0yLbH5Z1w5JwRnX1+EeH8xdJYPA70t8WyYdHwOVRfGuSDVIp1PNr9gNrtvWH6deJP0dAFI= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:7804:0:b0:26c:463c:493c with SMTP id t4-20020a2e7804000000b0026c463c493cmr11735075ljc.521.1664351405159; Wed, 28 Sep 2022 00:50:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Elijah Newren Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2022 00:49:53 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] sparse-checkout.txt: new document with sparse-checkout directions To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget , Git Mailing List , Victoria Dye , Derrick Stolee , Shaoxuan Yuan , Matheus Tavares , ZheNing Hu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 8:44 AM Junio C Hamano wrote: > > "Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget" writes: > > > + * Does the name --[no-]restrict sound good to others? Are there better options? > > Everybody in this thread are interested in sparse checkout, which > unfortunately blinds them from the fact that "restrict to", "limit > to", "focus on", etc. need not to be limited to the sparse checkout > feature. We must have something that hints that the option is about > the sparse checkout feature. > > As to the verbs, I do not mind "restrict to". Other good ones I do > not mind choosing are "limit to" and "focus on". They would equally > convey the same thing in this context. And the object for these > verb phrases are the area of interest, those paths without the > skip-worktree bit, the paths outside the sparse cone(s). > > Or we could go the other way. We are excluding those paths with the > skip-worktree bit, so "exclude" and "ignore" are natural candidates. If you're thinking about plain "exclude", that's already a flag in 'apply', 'am', 'clean', and 'ls-files'. Also, if you want these words alone, then they also seem to lack hints that the option is about the sparse checkout feature. Expand them a bit, perhaps? "--ignore-sparsity"? "--exclude-sparse-checkout-restrictions"? Assuming we are worried about needing "--no-" variants, wouldn't the risk of a "--no-ignore-sparsity" be worse than a "--no-restrict" in terms of awkwardness, given the double negative? > These two classes are good if the "restrict" behaviour will never be > the default. When it is the default, the option often used will > become "--no-restrict", which is awkward. > > Personally I am slightly in favor of "focus on" (i.e. > "--focus" vs "--unfocus") as that meshes well with the > concept of "the areas of the working tree paths that I am > interested in right now", which may already hint that the > option is about the sparse checkout feature (i.e. "I am > focusing on these areas right now") and can stay short. But > this is just one person's opinion. I'll add --focus/--unfocus to the list. --unfocus seems a bit more awkward to me than --no-restrict, but that might just be me. If others really liked it, I'd be fine with it. Right now, I'm leaning a bit more towards Stolee's --scope={sparse,all} (or maybe --scope={sparse,dense}?)