Thanks for your comprehensive answer, Elijah! On Di, Okt 08, 2019 at 09:14:27 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: > On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 11:52 PM Josef Wolf <j...@raven.inka.de> wrote: > > > > I am trying to add a file to an arbitrary branch without touching the > > current > > worktree with as little overhead as possible. > > I can see the logical progression that a sparse worktree would be less > overhead than a full worktree, and that a bare worktree would be even > better. But you're still dealing with unnecessary overhead; you don't > need a worktree at all to achieve what you want.
Well, the "as little overhead as possible" must be seen from the context. This is a repository with roundabout 10GB and more than 6200 files. Shared-clones with sparse-worktree is a BIG BIG BIG improvement here, which reduces operations from "minutes" to "withhin a second". > Traditionally, if you wanted to modify another branch without touching > the worktree at all, you would use a combination of hash-object, > mktree, commit-tree, and update-ref. That would be a better solution > to your problem than trying to approximate it with a sparse checkout. > However, that's at least four invocations of git, and you said as > little overhead as possible, so I'd recommend you use fast-import. I have taken a look into the commands you are recommending, and indeed, they seem to be better suited. Especially fast-import looks very promising. Unfortunately, those commands require intimate knowledge about git internals. I'll take a closer look into this! > It is very easy to mess up the sparse specifications. We can't check > for all errors, but a pretty obvious one is when people specify > restrictions that match no path. But why erroring out only on completely empty tree? Why not requiring that _every_ line in .git/info/sparse-checkout should match at least one file? Would make no sense, right? > We can at least give an error in that case. Why must this be a fatal error? Wouldn't a warning suffice? > 2) When they've learned about sparse checkouts and just want to test > what things are like in extreme situations. [ ... ] > For case 2, people learn that an empty working tree is a too extreme > situation that we'll throw an error at and so they adjust and make > sure to match at least one path. When I am trying to learn how a new feature works, I tend to double-check the results. If I expect contens but end up with an empty WT, I'd go and double check the specifications I've given anyway. I can easily understand that a warning might be desirable. But erroring out and failing to honor the "-b" flag is a bit too drastic, IMHO. > > Strange enough, I have some repositories at this machine where the > > .git/info/sparse-checkout file contains only non-existing files and git > > happily executes this "git checkout -b XXX remotes/origin/XXX" command > > leaving > > the working tree totally empty all the time. > > I can't reproduce: > > $ git config core.sparseCheckout true > $ echo 'non-existent' > .git/info/sparse-checkout > $ git checkout -b next origin/next > error: Sparse checkout leaves no entry on working directory > > Can you provide any more details about how you get into this state? Unfortunately not. Honestly, I have tried to reproduce for several days, since I tried to find a way how to work around that fatal error. Unfortunately, I could not find how to reproduce it. The only thing I can say is: threre are several clones on my disk which happily switch branches with an empty WT and without any complaints. > > Someone understands this inconsistent behaviour? > > No, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are bugs and edge cases. I > think I ran into one or two when testing things out, didn't take good > enough notes, and had trouble reproducing later. The sparse checkout > stuff has been under-tested and not well documented, something Stolee > is trying to fix right now. Yes, I've seen the work on the ML. But I am only a user of git and have a very hard time to understand what is going on there. -- Josef Wolf j...@raven.inka.de
