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

[Lessley Dennington <lessleydennington@gmail.com>]

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.