Re: [PATCH 1/5] t1092: test merge conflicts outside cone

[Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>]

On 7/23/2021 1:34 PM, Elijah Newren wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 2:07 PM Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
> <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>

...

>> +       # 3. rename the file to another sparse filename
> 
> But...that doesn't resolve the conflict.  Shouldn't this be titled
> "accept the conflict & rename the file elsewhere"?

Sure. I'm less focused on the content of the file and more the steps
the user might have taken to resolve the conflict.
 
>> +       run_on_all mv folder2/a folder2/z &&
>> +       test_all_match git add folder2 &&
> 
> 'mv' rather than 'git mv', then followed by 'git add'?  Any reason for
> this order rather than git add followed by git mv?

I'm trying to mimic that a user might realize that a filename might
need to be renamed (say, because a naming convention changed that is
causing the conflict) and I don't expect users to use 'git mv' to do
this action.

> Also, if you really do want to move first, did you use mv instead of
> "git mv" due to the latter's shortcoming of only operating on stage 0?
> (https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BGJdwpwhQUp4Wa4bKBp4hQFB9OM3N1FXH7SzY0mvLDa7Q@mail.gmail.com/)

'git mv' had not occurred to me as a thing to do in this case. I'm
focused on ensuring that 'git add' works as expected to update the
index in response to filesystem changes.

> Regardless of order, though, I still think mv or add should require a
> --force to rename or add a file outside the sparsity paths given the
> deferred negative surprises for users around such files.  (Or come up
> with a solid way to remove those surprises.)

--force is focused on _ignored_ files. I imagine that it could be
repurposed to allow entries outside of the sparse-checkout definition,
but we would want to be careful for users who are adding the entire
directory, not just the individual files, as they might _also_ get any
ignored files that exist in that directory. That might justify creating
a new option instead.

Further, the error message reported when adding something outside of
the sparse cone should probably mention whatever option exists as a
way for users to bypass this limitation. I'll collect my thoughts (in
response to your detailed thoughts shared on my cover letter) and
start a new thread about hardening this behavior. I've got an internal
ticket tracking this, and I want to wrap my head around all of the
interesting commands (add, mv, rm, update-index?) and create a full
recommendation to bring as an RFC.

Of course, if someone else wants to create this clear vision in the
meantime I will not complain.

Thanks,
-Stolee