Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] sparse-checkout: custom tab completion

[Lessley Dennington <lessleydennington@gmail.com>]

On 1/21/22 5:08 PM, Lessley Dennington wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/21/22 5:07 PM, Lessley Dennington wrote:
>>>> I know it is your preference to complete only directories and
>>>> exclude filenames, but I question if the confusion such a design
>>>> causes to end-users is worth it.
>>>
>>> I think perhaps we're a little caught up in exemplifying commands that
>>> are unrelated to sparse-checkout. As Elijah said in [1], the documentation
>>> states that directories and patterns are acceptable to sparse-checkout but
>>> not files. While it is not reasonable to try to offer every pattern a user
>>> could possibly pass to sparse-checkout, it is reasonable to offer
>>> directories and (in my opinion) will help guide users toward correct usage
>>> of the command.
>>>
>>> However, since completion on directories is cone-mode-specific, I am
>>> willing to accept the suggestion to only complete directories if we are in
>>> a cone-mode sparse-checkout and apply it in v4 of this series.
>>>
>>> [1]: 
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BErg-RtyycXaRXYfQHEQXA4q-FU9Q6nYkSHJsqL-04oXw@mail.gmail.com/ 
>>>
>>
>> In light of non-cone mode being removed in the near future (see [1]), it
>> actually seems it does not make sense to add different behaviors for cone
>> mode and non-cone mode. I also ran this by some other contributors, who
>> thought it would be best to complete on both files and directories so as
>> not to confuse users (as Junio and Szeder have indicated). So, instead of
>> differentiating between cone mode and non-cone mode in V4, I will plan to
>> remove directory completion.
>>
>> [1]: 
>> https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BEwMAPHGt5xD9jDU58grbrAqCdqNY9Nh8UJGLKuLbArXQ@mail.gmail.com/ 
>>
> My apologies, I will not remove directory completion, but rather will
> return to completing on both files and directories.

My apologies again, I think I mistakenly assumed Junio did not want
directory-only completion for cone mode based on this comment from [1]:

If a path that is not a directory (either because it is a file in the
current checkout, or because it is a directory only in a different branch)
is given, it might not make sense in the cone-mode for the current
checkout, but it may well make sense when a different branch is
checked out.

However, this line (which I overlooked when I was re-reading this
evening), leads me to believe that is not the case:

Are we limiting ourselves to directories only when we know we are in
the cone-mode and showing both directories and files otherwise?

It has also been pointed out to me that saying cone mode is going away is
incorrect - it is just being deprecated.

So, I will stick to my original plan of continuing to complete on
directories for cone mode and completing on both files and directories
for non-cone mode.

Again, apologies for the noise.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqv8yjz5us.fsf@gitster.g/