diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/technical')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/technical/api-error-handling.txt | 10 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/technical/api-trace2.txt | 6 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/technical/hash-function-transition.txt | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/technical/index-format.txt | 19 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt | 15 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/technical/parallel-checkout.txt | 270 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/technical/partial-clone.txt | 6 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/technical/protocol-v2.txt | 10 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/technical/reftable.txt | 9 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/technical/remembering-renames.txt | 671 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/technical/sparse-index.txt | 208 |
11 files changed, 1205 insertions, 21 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/technical/api-error-handling.txt b/Documentation/technical/api-error-handling.txt index ceeedd485c..8be4f4d0d6 100644 --- a/Documentation/technical/api-error-handling.txt +++ b/Documentation/technical/api-error-handling.txt @@ -1,8 +1,11 @@ Error reporting in git ====================== -`die`, `usage`, `error`, and `warning` report errors of various -kinds. +`BUG`, `die`, `usage`, `error`, and `warning` report errors of +various kinds. + +- `BUG` is for failed internal assertions that should never happen, + i.e. a bug in git itself. - `die` is for fatal application errors. It prints a message to the user and exits with status 128. @@ -20,6 +23,9 @@ kinds. without running into too many problems. Like `error`, it returns -1 after reporting the situation to the caller. +These reports will be logged via the trace2 facility. See the "error" +event in link:api-trace2.txt[trace2 API]. + Customizable error handlers --------------------------- diff --git a/Documentation/technical/api-trace2.txt b/Documentation/technical/api-trace2.txt index c65ffafc48..037a91cbca 100644 --- a/Documentation/technical/api-trace2.txt +++ b/Documentation/technical/api-trace2.txt @@ -396,14 +396,14 @@ only present on the "start" and "atexit" events. } ------------ -`"discard"`:: +`"too_many_files"`:: This event is written to the git-trace2-discard sentinel file if there are too many files in the target trace directory (see the trace2.maxFiles config option). + ------------ { - "event":"discard", + "event":"too_many_files", ... } ------------ @@ -465,7 +465,7 @@ completed.) ------------ `"error"`:: - This event is emitted when one of the `error()`, `die()`, + This event is emitted when one of the `BUG()`, `error()`, `die()`, `warning()`, or `usage()` functions are called. + ------------ diff --git a/Documentation/technical/hash-function-transition.txt b/Documentation/technical/hash-function-transition.txt index 7c1630bf83..260224b033 100644 --- a/Documentation/technical/hash-function-transition.txt +++ b/Documentation/technical/hash-function-transition.txt @@ -599,7 +599,7 @@ supports four different modes of operation: convert any object names written to output to SHA-1, but store objects using SHA-256. This allows users to test the code with no visible behavior change except for performance. This allows - allows running even tests that assume the SHA-1 hash function, to + running even tests that assume the SHA-1 hash function, to sanity-check the behavior of the new mode. 2. ("early transition") Allow both SHA-1 and SHA-256 object names in diff --git a/Documentation/technical/index-format.txt b/Documentation/technical/index-format.txt index d363a71c37..65da0daaa5 100644 --- a/Documentation/technical/index-format.txt +++ b/Documentation/technical/index-format.txt @@ -44,6 +44,13 @@ Git index format localization, no special casing of directory separator '/'). Entries with the same name are sorted by their stage field. + An index entry typically represents a file. However, if sparse-checkout + is enabled in cone mode (`core.sparseCheckoutCone` is enabled) and the + `extensions.sparseIndex` extension is enabled, then the index may + contain entries for directories outside of the sparse-checkout definition. + These entries have mode `040000`, include the `SKIP_WORKTREE` bit, and + the path ends in a directory separator. + 32-bit ctime seconds, the last time a file's metadata changed this is stat(2) data @@ -385,3 +392,15 @@ The remaining data of each directory block is grouped by type: in this block of entries. - 32-bit count of cache entries in this block + +== Sparse Directory Entries + + When using sparse-checkout in cone mode, some entire directories within + the index can be summarized by pointing to a tree object instead of the + entire expanded list of paths within that tree. An index containing such + entries is a "sparse index". Index format versions 4 and less were not + implemented with such entries in mind. Thus, for these versions, an + index containing sparse directory entries will include this extension + with signature { 's', 'd', 'i', 'r' }. Like the split-index extension, + tools should avoid interacting with a sparse index unless they understand + this extension. diff --git a/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt b/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt index f7eabc6c76..1eb525fe76 100644 --- a/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt +++ b/Documentation/technical/packfile-uri.txt @@ -35,13 +35,14 @@ include some sort of non-trivial implementation in the Minimum Viable Product, at least so that we can test the client. This is the implementation: a feature, marked experimental, that allows the -server to be configured by one or more `uploadpack.blobPackfileUri=<sha1> -<uri>` entries. Whenever the list of objects to be sent is assembled, all such -blobs are excluded, replaced with URIs. As noted in "Future work" below, the -server can evolve in the future to support excluding other objects (or other -implementations of servers could be made that support excluding other objects) -without needing a protocol change, so clients should not expect that packfiles -downloaded in this way only contain single blobs. +server to be configured by one or more `uploadpack.blobPackfileUri= +<object-hash> <pack-hash> <uri>` entries. Whenever the list of objects to be +sent is assembled, all such blobs are excluded, replaced with URIs. As noted +in "Future work" below, the server can evolve in the future to support +excluding other objects (or other implementations of servers could be made +that support excluding other objects) without needing a protocol change, so +clients should not expect that packfiles downloaded in this way only contain +single blobs. Client design ------------- diff --git a/Documentation/technical/parallel-checkout.txt b/Documentation/technical/parallel-checkout.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..e790258a1a --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/technical/parallel-checkout.txt @@ -0,0 +1,270 @@ +Parallel Checkout Design Notes +============================== + +The "Parallel Checkout" feature attempts to use multiple processes to +parallelize the work of uncompressing the blobs, applying in-core +filters, and writing the resulting contents to the working tree during a +checkout operation. It can be used by all checkout-related commands, +such as `clone`, `checkout`, `reset`, `sparse-checkout`, and others. + +These commands share the following basic structure: + +* Step 1: Read the current index file into memory. + +* Step 2: Modify the in-memory index based upon the command, and + temporarily mark all cache entries that need to be updated. + +* Step 3: Populate the working tree to match the new candidate index. + This includes iterating over all of the to-be-updated cache entries + and delete, create, or overwrite the associated files in the working + tree. + +* Step 4: Write the new index to disk. + +Step 3 is the focus of the "parallel checkout" effort described here. + +Sequential Implementation +------------------------- + +For the purposes of discussion here, the current sequential +implementation of Step 3 is divided in 3 parts, each one implemented in +its own function: + +* Step 3a: `unpack-trees.c:check_updates()` contains a series of + sequential loops iterating over the `cache_entry`'s array. The main + loop in this function calls the Step 3b function for each of the + to-be-updated entries. + +* Step 3b: `entry.c:checkout_entry()` examines the existing working tree + for file conflicts, collisions, and unsaved changes. It removes files + and creates leading directories as necessary. It calls the Step 3c + function for each entry to be written. + +* Step 3c: `entry.c:write_entry()` loads the blob into memory, smudges + it if necessary, creates the file in the working tree, writes the + smudged contents, calls `fstat()` or `lstat()`, and updates the + associated `cache_entry` struct with the stat information gathered. + +It wouldn't be safe to perform Step 3b in parallel, as there could be +race conditions between file creations and removals. Instead, the +parallel checkout framework lets the sequential code handle Step 3b, +and uses parallel workers to replace the sequential +`entry.c:write_entry()` calls from Step 3c. + +Rejected Multi-Threaded Solution +-------------------------------- + +The most "straightforward" implementation would be to spread the set of +to-be-updated cache entries across multiple threads. But due to the +thread-unsafe functions in the ODB code, we would have to use locks to +coordinate the parallel operation. An early prototype of this solution +showed that the multi-threaded checkout would bring performance +improvements over the sequential code, but there was still too much lock +contention. A `perf` profiling indicated that around 20% of the runtime +during a local Linux clone (on an SSD) was spent in locking functions. +For this reason this approach was rejected in favor of using multiple +child processes, which led to a better performance. + +Multi-Process Solution +---------------------- + +Parallel checkout alters the aforementioned Step 3 to use multiple +`checkout--worker` background processes to distribute the work. The +long-running worker processes are controlled by the foreground Git +command using the existing run-command API. + +Overview +~~~~~~~~ + +Step 3b is only slightly altered; for each entry to be checked out, the +main process performs the following steps: + +* M1: Check whether there is any untracked or unclean file in the + working tree which would be overwritten by this entry, and decide + whether to proceed (removing the file(s)) or not. + +* M2: Create the leading directories. + +* M3: Load the conversion attributes for the entry's path. + +* M4: Check, based on the entry's type and conversion attributes, + whether the entry is eligible for parallel checkout (more on this + later). If it is eligible, enqueue the entry and the loaded + attributes to later write the entry in parallel. If not, write the + entry right away, using the default sequential code. + +Note: we save the conversion attributes associated with each entry +because the workers don't have access to the main process' index state, +so they can't load the attributes by themselves (and the attributes are +needed to properly smudge the entry). Additionally, this has a positive +impact on performance as (1) we don't need to load the attributes twice +and (2) the attributes machinery is optimized to handle paths in +sequential order. + +After all entries have passed through the above steps, the main process +checks if the number of enqueued entries is sufficient to spread among +the workers. If not, it just writes them sequentially. Otherwise, it +spawns the workers and distributes the queued entries uniformly in +continuous chunks. This aims to minimize the chances of two workers +writing to the same directory simultaneously, which could increase lock +contention in the kernel. + +Then, for each assigned item, each worker: + +* W1: Checks if there is any non-directory file in the leading part of + the entry's path or if there already exists a file at the entry' path. + If so, mark the entry with `PC_ITEM_COLLIDED` and skip it (more on + this later). + +* W2: Creates the file (with O_CREAT and O_EXCL). + +* W3: Loads the blob into memory (inflating and delta reconstructing + it). + +* W4: Applies any required in-process filter, like end-of-line + conversion and re-encoding. + +* W5: Writes the result to the file descriptor opened at W2. + +* W6: Calls `fstat()` or lstat()` on the just-written path, and sends + the result back to the main process, together with the end status of + the operation and the item's identification number. + +Note that, when possible, steps W3 to W5 are delegated to the streaming +machinery, removing the need to keep the entire blob in memory. + +If the worker fails to read the blob or to write it to the working tree, +it removes the created file to avoid leaving empty files behind. This is +the *only* time a worker is allowed to remove a file. + +As mentioned earlier, it is the responsibility of the main process to +remove any file that blocks the checkout operation (or abort if the +removal(s) would cause data loss and the user didn't ask to `--force`). +This is crucial to avoid race conditions and also to properly detect +path collisions at Step W1. + +After the workers finish writing the items and sending back the required +information, the main process handles the results in two steps: + +- First, it updates the in-memory index with the `lstat()` information + sent by the workers. (This must be done first as this information + might me required in the following step.) + +- Then it writes the items which collided on disk (i.e. items marked + with `PC_ITEM_COLLIDED`). More on this below. + +Path Collisions +--------------- + +Path collisions happen when two different paths correspond to the same +entry in the file system. E.g. the paths 'a' and 'A' would collide in a +case-insensitive file system. + +The sequential checkout deals with collisions in the same way that it +deals with files that were already present in the working tree before +checkout. Basically, it checks if the path that it wants to write +already exists on disk, makes sure the existing file doesn't have +unsaved data, and then overwrites it. (To be more pedantic: it deletes +the existing file and creates the new one.) So, if there are multiple +colliding files to be checked out, the sequential code will write each +one of them but only the last will actually survive on disk. + +Parallel checkout aims to reproduce the same behavior. However, we +cannot let the workers racily write to the same file on disk. Instead, +the workers detect when the entry that they want to check out would +collide with an existing file, and mark it with `PC_ITEM_COLLIDED`. +Later, the main process can sequentially feed these entries back to +`checkout_entry()` without the risk of race conditions. On clone, this +also has the effect of marking the colliding entries to later emit a +warning for the user, like the classic sequential checkout does. + +The workers are able to detect both collisions among the entries being +concurrently written and collisions between a parallel-eligible entry +and an ineligible entry. The general idea for collision detection is +quite straightforward: for each parallel-eligible entry, the main +process must remove all files that prevent this entry from being written +(before enqueueing it). This includes any non-directory file in the +leading path of the entry. Later, when a worker gets assigned the entry, +it looks again for the non-directories files and for an already existing +file at the entry's path. If any of these checks finds something, the +worker knows that there was a path collision. + +Because parallel checkout can distinguish path collisions from the case +where the file was already present in the working tree before checkout, +we could alternatively choose to skip the checkout of colliding entries. +However, each entry that doesn't get written would have NULL `lstat()` +fields on the index. This could cause performance penalties for +subsequent commands that need to refresh the index, as they would have +to go to the file system to see if the entry is dirty. Thus, if we have +N entries in a colliding group and we decide to write and `lstat()` only +one of them, every subsequent `git-status` will have to read, convert, +and hash the written file N - 1 times. By checking out all colliding +entries (like the sequential code does), we only pay the overhead once, +during checkout. + +Eligible Entries for Parallel Checkout +-------------------------------------- + +As previously mentioned, not all entries passed to `checkout_entry()` +will be considered eligible for parallel checkout. More specifically, we +exclude: + +- Symbolic links; to avoid race conditions that, in combination with + path collisions, could cause workers to write files at the wrong + place. For example, if we were to concurrently check out a symlink + 'a' -> 'b' and a regular file 'A/f' in a case-insensitive file system, + we could potentially end up writing the file 'A/f' at 'a/f', due to a + race condition. + +- Regular files that require external filters (either "one shot" filters + or long-running process filters). These filters are black-boxes to Git + and may have their own internal locking or non-concurrent assumptions. + So it might not be safe to run multiple instances in parallel. ++ +Besides, long-running filters may use the delayed checkout feature to +postpone the return of some filtered blobs. The delayed checkout queue +and the parallel checkout queue are not compatible and should remain +separate. ++ +Note: regular files that only require internal filters, like end-of-line +conversion and re-encoding, are eligible for parallel checkout. + +Ineligible entries are checked out by the classic sequential codepath +*before* spawning workers. + +Note: submodules's files are also eligible for parallel checkout (as +long as they don't fall into any of the excluding categories mentioned +above). But since each submodule is checked out in its own child +process, we don't mix the superproject's and the submodules' files in +the same parallel checkout process or queue. + +The API +------- + +The parallel checkout API was designed with the goal of minimizing +changes to the current users of the checkout machinery. This means that +they don't have to call a different function for sequential or parallel +checkout. As already mentioned, `checkout_entry()` will automatically +insert the given entry in the parallel checkout queue when this feature +is enabled and the entry is eligible; otherwise, it will just write the +entry right away, using the sequential code. In general, callers of the +parallel checkout API should look similar to this: + +---------------------------------------------- +int pc_workers, pc_threshold, err = 0; +struct checkout state; + +get_parallel_checkout_configs(&pc_workers, &pc_threshold); + +/* + * This check is not strictly required, but it + * should save some time in sequential mode. + */ +if (pc_workers > 1) + init_parallel_checkout(); + +for (each cache_entry ce to-be-updated) + err |= checkout_entry(ce, &state, NULL, NULL); + +err |= run_parallel_checkout(&state, pc_workers, pc_threshold, NULL, NULL); +---------------------------------------------- diff --git a/Documentation/technical/partial-clone.txt b/Documentation/technical/partial-clone.txt index 0780d30cac..a0dd7c66f2 100644 --- a/Documentation/technical/partial-clone.txt +++ b/Documentation/technical/partial-clone.txt @@ -242,8 +242,7 @@ remote in a specific order. repository and can satisfy all such requests. - Repack essentially treats promisor and non-promisor packfiles as 2 - distinct partitions and does not mix them. Repack currently only works - on non-promisor packfiles and loose objects. + distinct partitions and does not mix them. - Dynamic object fetching invokes fetch-pack once *for each item* because most algorithms stumble upon a missing object and need to have @@ -273,9 +272,6 @@ to use those promisor remotes in that order." The user might want to work in a triangular work flow with multiple promisor remotes that each have an incomplete view of the repository. -- Allow repack to work on promisor packfiles (while keeping them distinct - from non-promisor packfiles). - - Allow non-pathname-based filters to make use of packfile bitmaps (when present). This was just an omission during the initial implementation. diff --git a/Documentation/technical/protocol-v2.txt b/Documentation/technical/protocol-v2.txt index f4ed141774..1040d85319 100644 --- a/Documentation/technical/protocol-v2.txt +++ b/Documentation/technical/protocol-v2.txt @@ -346,6 +346,14 @@ explained below. client should download from all given URIs. Currently, the protocols supported are "http" and "https". +If the 'wait-for-done' feature is advertised, the following argument +can be included in the client's request. + + wait-for-done + Indicates to the server that it should never send "ready", but + should wait for the client to say "done" before sending the + packfile. + The response of `fetch` is broken into a number of sections separated by delimiter packets (0001), with each section beginning with its section header. Most sections are sent only when the packfile is sent. @@ -532,7 +540,7 @@ An `object-info` request takes the following arguments: Indicates to the server an object which the client wants to obtain information for. -The response of `object-info` is a list of the the requested object ids +The response of `object-info` is a list of the requested object ids and associated requested information, each separated by a single space. output = info flush-pkt diff --git a/Documentation/technical/reftable.txt b/Documentation/technical/reftable.txt index 3ef169af27..d7c3b645cf 100644 --- a/Documentation/technical/reftable.txt +++ b/Documentation/technical/reftable.txt @@ -1011,8 +1011,13 @@ reftable stack, reload `tables.list`, and delete any tables no longer mentioned in `tables.list`. Irregular program exit may still leave about unused files. In this case, a -cleanup operation can read `tables.list`, note its modification timestamp, and -delete any unreferenced `*.ref` files that are older. +cleanup operation should proceed as follows: + +* take a lock `tables.list.lock` to prevent concurrent modifications +* refresh the reftable stack, by reading `tables.list` +* for each `*.ref` file, remove it if +** it is not mentioned in `tables.list`, and +** its max update_index is not beyond the max update_index of the stack Alternatives considered diff --git a/Documentation/technical/remembering-renames.txt b/Documentation/technical/remembering-renames.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..2fd5cc88e0 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/technical/remembering-renames.txt @@ -0,0 +1,671 @@ +Rebases and cherry-picks involve a sequence of merges whose results are +recorded as new single-parent commits. The first parent side of those +merges represent the "upstream" side, and often include a far larger set of +changes than the second parent side. Traditionally, the renames on the +first-parent side of that sequence of merges were repeatedly re-detected +for every merge. This file explains why it is safe and effective during +rebases and cherry-picks to remember renames on the upstream side of +history as an optimization, assuming all merges are automatic and clean +(i.e. no conflicts and not interrupted for user input or editing). + +Outline: + + 0. Assumptions + + 1. How rebasing and cherry-picking work + + 2. Why the renames on MERGE_SIDE1 in any given pick are *always* a + superset of the renames on MERGE_SIDE1 for the next pick. + + 3. Why any rename on MERGE_SIDE1 in any given pick is _almost_ always also + a rename on MERGE_SIDE1 for the next pick + + 4. A detailed description of the the counter-examples to #3. + + 5. Why the special cases in #4 are still fully reasonable to use to pair + up files for three-way content merging in the merge machinery, and why + they do not affect the correctness of the merge. + + 6. Interaction with skipping of "irrelevant" renames + + 7. Additional items that need to be cached + + 8. How directory rename detection interacts with the above and why this + optimization is still safe even if merge.directoryRenames is set to + "true". + + +=== 0. Assumptions === + +There are two assumptions that will hold throughout this document: + + * The upstream side where commits are transplanted to is treated as the + first parent side when rebase/cherry-pick call the merge machinery + + * All merges are fully automatic + +and a third that will hold in sections 2-5 for simplicity, that I'll later +address in section 8: + + * No directory renames occur + + +Let me explain more about each assumption and why I include it: + + +The first assumption is merely for the purposes of making this document +clearer; the optimization implementation does not actually depend upon it. +However, the assumption does hold in all cases because it reflects the way +that both rebase and cherry-pick were implemented; and the implementation +of cherry-pick and rebase are not readily changeable for backwards +compatibility reasons (see for example the discussion of the --ours and +--theirs flag in the documentation of `git checkout`, particularly the +comments about how they behave with rebase). The optimization avoids +checking first-parent-ness, though. It checks the conditions that make the +optimization valid instead, so it would still continue working if someone +changed the parent ordering that cherry-pick and rebase use. But making +this assumption does make this document much clearer and prevents me from +having to repeat every example twice. + +If the second assumption is violated, then the optimization simply is +turned off and thus isn't relevant to consider. The second assumption can +also be stated as "there is no interruption for a user to resolve conflicts +or to just further edit or tweak files". While real rebases and +cherry-picks are often interrupted (either because it's an interactive +rebase where the user requested to stop and edit, or because there were +conflicts that the user needs to resolve), the cache of renames is not +stored on disk, and thus is thrown away as soon as the rebase or cherry +pick stops for the user to resolve the operation. + +The third assumption makes sections 2-5 simpler, and allows people to +understand the basics of why this optimization is safe and effective, and +then I can go back and address the specifics in section 8. It is probably +also worth noting that if directory renames do occur, then the default of +merge.directoryRenames being set to "conflict" means that the operation +will stop for users to resolve the conflicts and the cache will be thrown +away, and thus that there won't be an optimization to apply. So, the only +reason we need to address directory renames specifically, is that some +users will have set merge.directoryRenames to "true" to allow the merges to +continue to proceed automatically. The optimization is still safe with +this config setting, but we have to discuss a few more cases to show why; +this discussion is deferred until section 8. + + +=== 1. How rebasing and cherry-picking work === + +Consider the following setup (from the git-rebase manpage): + + A---B---C topic + / + D---E---F---G main + +After rebasing or cherry-picking topic onto main, this will appear as: + + A'--B'--C' topic + / + D---E---F---G main + +The way the commits A', B', and C' are created is through a series of +merges, where rebase or cherry-pick sequentially uses each of the three +A-B-C commits in a special merge operation. Let's label the three commits +in the merge operation as MERGE_BASE, MERGE_SIDE1, and MERGE_SIDE2. For +this picture, the three commits for each of the three merges would be: + +To create A': + MERGE_BASE: E + MERGE_SIDE1: G + MERGE_SIDE2: A + +To create B': + MERGE_BASE: A + MERGE_SIDE1: A' + MERGE_SIDE2: B + +To create C': + MERGE_BASE: B + MERGE_SIDE1: B' + MERGE_SIDE2: C + +Sometimes, folks are surprised that these three-way merges are done. It +can be useful in understanding these three-way merges to view them in a +slightly different light. For example, in creating C', you can view it as +either: + + * Apply the changes between B & C to B' + * Apply the changes between B & B' to C + +Conceptually the two statements above are the same as a three-way merge of +B, B', and C, at least the parts before you decide to record a commit. + + +=== 2. Why the renames on MERGE_SIDE1 in any given pick are always a === +=== superset of the renames on MERGE_SIDE1 for the next pick. === + +The merge machinery uses the filenames it is fed from MERGE_BASE, +MERGE_SIDE1, and MERGE_SIDE2. It will only move content to a different +filename under one of three conditions: + + * To make both pieces of a conflict available to a user during conflict + resolution (examples: directory/file conflict, add/add type conflict + such as symlink vs. regular file) + + * When MERGE_SIDE1 renames the file. + + * When MERGE_SIDE2 renames the file. + +First, let's remember what commits are involved in the first and second +picks of the cherry-pick or rebase sequence: + +To create A': + MERGE_BASE: E + MERGE_SIDE1: G + MERGE_SIDE2: A + +To create B': + MERGE_BASE: A + MERGE_SIDE1: A' + MERGE_SIDE2: B + +So, in particular, we need to show that the renames between E and G are a +superset of those between A and A'. + +A' is created by the first merge. A' will only have renames for one of the +three reasons listed above. The first case, a conflict, results in a +situation where the cache is dropped and thus this optimization doesn't +take effect, so we need not consider that case. The third case, a rename +on MERGE_SIDE2 (i.e. from G to A), will show up in A' but it also shows up +in A -- therefore when diffing A and A' that path does not show up as a +rename. The only remaining way for renames to show up in A' is for the +rename to come from MERGE_SIDE1. Therefore, all renames between A and A' +are a subset of those between E and G. Equivalently, all renames between E +and G are a superset of those between A and A'. + + +=== 3. Why any rename on MERGE_SIDE1 in any given pick is _almost_ === +=== always also a rename on MERGE_SIDE1 for the next pick. === + +Let's again look at the first two picks: + +To create A': + MERGE_BASE: E + MERGE_SIDE1: G + MERGE_SIDE2: A + +To create B': + MERGE_BASE: A + MERGE_SIDE1: A' + MERGE_SIDE2: B + +Now let's look at any given rename from MERGE_SIDE1 of the first pick, i.e. +any given rename from E to G. Let's use the filenames 'oldfile' and +'newfile' for demonstration purposes. That first pick will function as +follows; when the rename is detected, the merge machinery will do a +three-way content merge of the following: + E:oldfile + G:newfile + A:oldfile +and produce a new result: + A':newfile + +Note above that I've assumed that E->A did not rename oldfile. If that +side did rename, then we most likely have a rename/rename(1to2) conflict +that will cause the rebase or cherry-pick operation to halt and drop the +in-memory cache of renames and thus doesn't need to be considered further. +In the special case that E->A does rename the file but also renames it to +newfile, then there is no conflict from the renaming and the merge can +succeed. In this special case, the rename is not valid to cache because +the second merge will find A:newfile in the MERGE_BASE (see also the new +testcases in t6429 with "rename same file identically" in their +description). So a rename/rename(1to1) needs to be specially handled by +pruning renames from the cache and decrementing the dir_rename_counts in +the current and leading directories associated with those renames. Or, +since these are really rare, one could just take the easy way out and +disable the remembering renames optimization when a rename/rename(1to1) +happens. + +The previous paragraph handled the cases for E->A renaming oldfile, let's +continue assuming that oldfile is not renamed in A. + +As per the diagram for creating B', MERGE_SIDE1 involves the changes from A +to A'. So, we are curious whether A:oldfile and A':newfile will be viewed +as renames. Note that: + + * There will be no A':oldfile (because there could not have been a + G:oldfile as we do not do break detection in the merge machinery and + G:newfile was detected as a rename, and by the construction of the + rename above that merged cleanly, the merge machinery will ensure there + is no 'oldfile' in the result). + + * There will be no A:newfile (if there had been, we would have had a + rename/add conflict). + + * Clearly A:oldfile and A':newfile are "related" (A':newfile came from a + clean three-way content merge involving A:oldfile). + +We can also expound on the third point above, by noting that three-way +content merges can also be viewed as applying the differences between the +base and one side to the other side. Thus we can view A':newfile as +having been created by taking the changes between E:oldfile and G:newfile +(which were detected as being related, i.e. <50% changed) to A:oldfile. + +Thus A:oldfile and A':newfile are just as related as E:oldfile and +G:newfile are -- they have exactly identical differences. Since the latter +were detected as renames, A:oldfile and A':newfile should also be +detectable as renames almost always. + + +=== 4. A detailed description of the counter-examples to #3. === + +We already noted in section 3 that rename/rename(1to1) (i.e. both sides +renaming a file the same way) was one counter-example. The more +interesting bit, though, is why did we need to use the "almost" qualifier +when stating that A:oldfile and A':newfile are "almost" always detectable +as renames? + +Let's repeat an earlier point that section 3 made: + + A':newfile was created by applying the changes between E:oldfile and + G:newfile to A:oldfile. The changes between E:oldfile and G:newfile were + <50% of the size of E:oldfile. + +If those changes that were <50% of the size of E:oldfile are also <50% of +the size of A:oldfile, then A:oldfile and A':newfile will be detectable as +renames. However, if there is a dramatic size reduction between E:oldfile +and A:oldfile (but the changes between E:oldfile, G:newfile, and A:oldfile +still somehow merge cleanly), then traditional rename detection would not +detect A:oldfile and A':newfile as renames. + +Here's an example where that can happen: + * E:oldfile had 20 lines + * G:newfile added 10 new lines at the beginning of the file + * A:oldfile kept the first 3 lines of the file, and deleted all the rest +then + => A':newfile would have 13 lines, 3 of which matches those in A:oldfile. +E:oldfile -> G:newfile would be detected as a rename, but A:oldfile and +A':newfile would not be. + + +=== 5. Why the special cases in #4 are still fully reasonable to use to === +=== pair up files for three-way content merging in the merge machinery, === +=== and why they do not affect the correctness of the merge. === + +In the rename/rename(1to1) case, A:newfile and A':newfile are not renames +since they use the *same* filename. However, files with the same filename +are obviously fine to pair up for three-way content merging (the merge +machinery has never employed break detection). The interesting +counter-example case is thus not the rename/rename(1to1) case, but the case +where A did not rename oldfile. That was the case that we spent most of +the time discussing in sections 3 and 4. The remainder of this section +will be devoted to that case as well. + +So, even if A:oldfile and A':newfile aren't detectable as renames, why is +it still reasonable to pair them up for three-way content merging in the +merge machinery? There are multiple reasons: + + * As noted in sections 3 and 4, the diff between A:oldfile and A':newfile + is *exactly* the same as the diff between E:oldfile and G:newfile. The + latter pair were detected as renames, so it seems unlikely to surprise + users for us to treat A:oldfile and A':newfile as renames. + + * In fact, "oldfile" and "newfile" were at one point detected as renames + due to how they were constructed in the E..G chain. And we used that + information once already in this rebase/cherry-pick. I think users + would be unlikely to be surprised at us continuing to treat the files + as renames and would quickly understand why we had done so. + + * Marking or declaring files as renames is *not* the end goal for merges. + Merges use renames to determine which files make sense to be paired up + for three-way content merges. + + * A:oldfile and A':newfile were _already_ paired up in a three-way + content merge; that is how A':newfile was created. In fact, that + three-way content merge was clean. So using them again in a later + three-way content merge seems very reasonable. + +However, the above is focusing on the common scenarios. Let's try to look +at all possible unusual scenarios and compare without the optimization to +with the optimization. Consider the following theoretical cases; we will +then dive into each to determine which of them are possible, +and if so, what they mean: + + 1. Without the optimization, the second merge results in a conflict. + With the optimization, the second merge also results in a conflict. + Questions: Are the conflicts confusingly different? Better in one case? + + 2. Without the optimization, the second merge results in NO conflict. + With the optimization, the second merge also results in NO conflict. + Questions: Are the merges the same? + + 3. Without the optimization, the second merge results in a conflict. + With the optimization, the second merge results in NO conflict. + Questions: Possible? Bug, bugfix, or something else? + + 4. Without the optimization, the second merge results in NO conflict. + With the optimization, the second merge results in a conflict. + Questions: Possible? Bug, bugfix, or something else? + +I'll consider all four cases, but out of order. + +The fourth case is impossible. For the code without the remembering +renames optimization to not get a conflict, B:oldfile would need to exactly +match A:oldfile -- if it doesn't, there would be a modify/delete conflict. +If A:oldfile matches B:oldfile exactly, then a three-way content merge +between A:oldfile, A':newfile, and B:oldfile would have no conflict and +just give us the version of newfile from A' as the result. + +From the same logic as the above paragraph, the second case would indeed +result in identical merges. When A:oldfile exactly matches B:oldfile, an +undetected rename would say, "Oh, I see one side didn't modify 'oldfile' +and the other side deleted it. I'll delete it. And I see you have this +brand new file named 'newfile' in A', so I'll keep it." That gives the +same results as three-way content merging A:oldfile, A':newfile, and +B:oldfile -- a removal of oldfile with the version of newfile from A' +showing up in the result. + +The third case is interesting. It means that A:oldfile and A':newfile were +not just similar enough, but that the changes between them did not conflict +with the changes between A:oldfile and B:oldfile. This would validate our +hunch that the files were similar enough to be used in a three-way content +merge, and thus seems entirely correct for us to have used them that way. +(Sidenote: One particular example here may be enlightening. Let's say that +B was an immediate revert of A. B clearly would have been a clean revert +of A, since A was B's immediate parent. One would assume that if you can +pick a commit, you should also be able to cherry-pick its immediate revert. +However, this is one of those funny corner cases; without this +optimization, we just successfully picked a commit cleanly, but we are +unable to cherry-pick its immediate revert due to the size differences +between E:oldfile and A:oldfile.) + +That leaves only the first case to consider -- when we get conflicts both +with or without the optimization. Without the optimization, we'll have a +modify/delete conflict, where both A':newfile and B:oldfile are left in the +tree for the user to deal with and no hints about the potential similarity +between the two. With the optimization, we'll have a three-way content +merged A:oldfile, A':newfile, and B:oldfile with conflict markers +suggesting we thought the files were related but giving the user the chance +to resolve. As noted above, I don't think users will find us treating +'oldfile' and 'newfile' as related as a surprise since they were between E +and G. In any event, though, this case shouldn't be concerning since we +hit a conflict in both cases, told the user what we know, and asked them to +resolve it. + +So, in summary, case 4 is impossible, case 2 yields the same behavior, and +cases 1 and 3 seem to provide as good or better behavior with the +optimization than without. + + +=== 6. Interaction with skipping of "irrelevant" renames === + +Previous optimizations involved skipping rename detection for paths +considered to be "irrelevant". See for example the following commits: + + * 32a56dfb99 ("merge-ort: precompute subset of sources for which we + need rename detection", 2021-03-11) + * 2fd9eda462 ("merge-ort: precompute whether directory rename + detection is needed", 2021-03-11) + * 9bd342137e ("diffcore-rename: determine which relevant_sources are + no longer relevant", 2021-03-13) + +Relevance is always determined by what the _other_ side of history has +done, in terms of modifing a file that our side renamed, or adding a +file to a directory which our side renamed. This means that a path +that is "irrelevant" when picking the first commit of a series in a +rebase or cherry-pick, may suddenly become "relevant" when picking the +next commit. + +The upshot of this is that we can only cache rename detection results +for relevant paths, and need to re-check relevance in subsequent +commits. If those subsequent commits have additional paths that are +relevant for rename detection, then we will need to redo rename +detection -- though we can limit it to the paths for which we have not +already detected renames. + + +=== 7. Additional items that need to be cached === + +It turns out we have to cache more than just renames; we also cache: + + A) non-renames (i.e. unpaired deletes) + B) counts of renames within directories + C) sources that were marked as RELEVANT_LOCATION, but which were + downgraded to RELEVANT_NO_MORE + D) the toplevel trees involved in the merge + +These are all stored in struct rename_info, and respectively appear in + * cached_pairs (along side actual renames, just with a value of NULL) + * dir_rename_counts + * cached_irrelevant + * merge_trees + +The reason for (A) comes from the irrelevant renames skipping +optimization discussed in section 6. The fact that irrelevant renames +are skipped means we only get a subset of the potential renames +detected and subsequent commits may need to run rename detection on +the upstream side on a subset of the remaining renames (to get the +renames that are relevant for that later commit). Since unpaired +deletes are involved in rename detection too, we don't want to +repeatedly check that those paths remain unpaired on the upstream side +with every commit we are transplanting. + +The reason for (B) is that diffcore_rename_extended() is what +generates the counts of renames by directory which is needed in +directory rename detection, and if we don't run +diffcore_rename_extended() again then we need to have the output from +it, including dir_rename_counts, from the previous run. + +The reason for (C) is that merge-ort's tree traversal will again think +those paths are relevant (marking them as RELEVANT_LOCATION), but the +fact that they were downgraded to RELEVANT_NO_MORE means that +dir_rename_counts already has the information we need for directory +rename detection. (A path which becomes RELEVANT_CONTENT in a +subsequent commit will be removed from cached_irrelevant.) + +The reason for (D) is that is how we determine whether the remember +renames optimization can be used. In particular, remembering that our +sequence of merges looks like: + + Merge 1: + MERGE_BASE: E + MERGE_SIDE1: G + MERGE_SIDE2: A + => Creates A' + + Merge 2: + MERGE_BASE: A + MERGE_SIDE1: A' + MERGE_SIDE2: B + => Creates B' + +It is the fact that the trees A and A' appear both in Merge 1 and in +Merge 2, with A as a parent of A' that allows this optimization. So +we store the trees to compare with what we are asked to merge next +time. + + +=== 8. How directory rename detection interacts with the above and === +=== why this optimization is still safe even if === +=== merge.directoryRenames is set to "true". === + +As noted in the assumptions section: + + """ + ...if directory renames do occur, then the default of + merge.directoryRenames being set to "conflict" means that the operation + will stop for users to resolve the conflicts and the cache will be + thrown away, and thus that there won't be an optimization to apply. + So, the only reason we need to address directory renames specifically, + is that some users will have set merge.directoryRenames to "true" to + allow the merges to continue to proceed automatically. + """ + +Let's remember that we need to look at how any given pick affects the next +one. So let's again use the first two picks from the diagram in section +one: + + First pick does this three-way merge: + MERGE_BASE: E + MERGE_SIDE1: G + MERGE_SIDE2: A + => creates A' + + Second pick does this three-way merge: + MERGE_BASE: A + MERGE_SIDE1: A' + MERGE_SIDE2: B + => creates B' + +Now, directory rename detection exists so that if one side of history +renames a directory, and the other side adds a new file to the old +directory, then the merge (with merge.directoryRenames=true) can move the +file into the new directory. There are two qualitatively different ways to +add a new file to an old directory: create a new file, or rename a file +into that directory. Also, directory renames can be done on either side of +history, so there are four cases to consider: + + * MERGE_SIDE1 renames old dir, MERGE_SIDE2 adds new file to old dir + * MERGE_SIDE1 renames old dir, MERGE_SIDE2 renames file into old dir + * MERGE_SIDE1 adds new file to old dir, MERGE_SIDE2 renames old dir + * MERGE_SIDE1 renames file into old dir, MERGE_SIDE2 renames old dir + +One last note before we consider these four cases: There are some +important properties about how we implement this optimization with +respect to directory rename detection that we need to bear in mind +while considering all of these cases: + + * rename caching occurs *after* applying directory renames + + * a rename created by directory rename detection is recorded for the side + of history that did the directory rename. + + * dir_rename_counts, the nested map of + {oldname => {newname => count}}, + is cached between runs as well. This basically means that directory + rename detection is also cached, though only on the side of history + that we cache renames for (MERGE_SIDE1 as far as this document is + concerned; see the assumptions section). Two interesting sub-notes + about these counts: + + * If we need to perform rename-detection again on the given side (e.g. + some paths are relevant for rename detection that weren't before), + then we clear dir_rename_counts and recompute it, making use of + cached_pairs. The reason it is important to do this is optimizations + around RELEVANT_LOCATION exist to prevent us from computing + unnecessary renames for directory rename detection and from computing + dir_rename_counts for irrelevant directories; but those same renames + or directories may become necessary for subsequent merges. The + easiest way to "fix up" dir_rename_counts in such cases is to just + recompute it. + + * If we prune rename/rename(1to1) entries from the cache, then we also + need to update dir_rename_counts to decrement the counts for the + involved directory and any relevant parent directories (to undo what + update_dir_rename_counts() in diffcore-rename.c incremented when the + rename was initially found). If we instead just disable the + remembering renames optimization when the exceedingly rare + rename/rename(1to1) cases occur, then dir_rename_counts will get + re-computed the next time rename detection occurs, as noted above. + + * the side with multiple commits to pick, is the side of history that we + do NOT cache renames for. Thus, there are no additional commits to + change the number of renames in a directory, except for those done by + directory rename detection (which always pad the majority). + + * the "renames" we cache are modified slightly by any directory rename, + as noted below. + +Now, with those notes out of the way, let's go through the four cases +in order: + +Case 1: MERGE_SIDE1 renames old dir, MERGE_SIDE2 adds new file to old dir + + This case looks like this: + + MERGE_BASE: E, Has olddir/ + MERGE_SIDE1: G, Renames olddir/ -> newdir/ + MERGE_SIDE2: A, Adds olddir/newfile + => creates A', With newdir/newfile + + MERGE_BASE: A, Has olddir/newfile + MERGE_SIDE1: A', Has newdir/newfile + MERGE_SIDE2: B, Modifies olddir/newfile + => expected B', with threeway-merged newdir/newfile from above + + In this case, with the optimization, note that after the first commit: + * MERGE_SIDE1 remembers olddir/ -> newdir/ + * MERGE_SIDE1 has cached olddir/newfile -> newdir/newfile + Given the cached rename noted above, the second merge can proceed as + expected without needing to perform rename detection from A -> A'. + +Case 2: MERGE_SIDE1 renames old dir, MERGE_SIDE2 renames file into old dir + + This case looks like this: + MERGE_BASE: E oldfile, olddir/ + MERGE_SIDE1: G oldfile, olddir/ -> newdir/ + MERGE_SIDE2: A oldfile -> olddir/newfile + => creates A', With newdir/newfile representing original oldfile + + MERGE_BASE: A olddir/newfile + MERGE_SIDE1: A' newdir/newfile + MERGE_SIDE2: B modify olddir/newfile + => expected B', with threeway-merged newdir/newfile from above + + In this case, with the optimization, note that after the first commit: + * MERGE_SIDE1 remembers olddir/ -> newdir/ + * MERGE_SIDE1 has cached olddir/newfile -> newdir/newfile + (NOT oldfile -> newdir/newfile; compare to case with + (p->status == 'R' && new_path) in possibly_cache_new_pair()) + + Given the cached rename noted above, the second merge can proceed as + expected without needing to perform rename detection from A -> A'. + +Case 3: MERGE_SIDE1 adds new file to old dir, MERGE_SIDE2 renames old dir + + This case looks like this: + + MERGE_BASE: E, Has olddir/ + MERGE_SIDE1: G, Adds olddir/newfile + MERGE_SIDE2: A, Renames olddir/ -> newdir/ + => creates A', With newdir/newfile + + MERGE_BASE: A, Has newdir/, but no notion of newdir/newfile + MERGE_SIDE1: A', Has newdir/newfile + MERGE_SIDE2: B, Has newdir/, but no notion of newdir/newfile + => expected B', with newdir/newfile from A' + + In this case, with the optimization, note that after the first commit there + were no renames on MERGE_SIDE1, and any renames on MERGE_SIDE2 are tossed. + But the second merge didn't need any renames so this is fine. + +Case 4: MERGE_SIDE1 renames file into old dir, MERGE_SIDE2 renames old dir + + This case looks like this: + + MERGE_BASE: E, Has olddir/ + MERGE_SIDE1: G, Renames oldfile -> olddir/newfile + MERGE_SIDE2: A, Renames olddir/ -> newdir/ + => creates A', With newdir/newfile representing original oldfile + + MERGE_BASE: A, Has oldfile + MERGE_SIDE1: A', Has newdir/newfile + MERGE_SIDE2: B, Modifies oldfile + => expected B', with threeway-merged newdir/newfile from above + + In this case, with the optimization, note that after the first commit: + * MERGE_SIDE1 remembers oldfile -> newdir/newfile + (NOT oldfile -> olddir/newfile; compare to case of second + block under p->status == 'R' in possibly_cache_new_pair()) + * MERGE_SIDE2 renames are tossed because only MERGE_SIDE1 is remembered + + Given the cached rename noted above, the second merge can proceed as + expected without needing to perform rename detection from A -> A'. + +Finally, I'll just note here that interactions with the +skip-irrelevant-renames optimization means we sometimes don't detect +renames for any files within a directory that was renamed, in which +case we will not have been able to detect any rename for the directory +itself. In such a case, we do not know whether the directory was +renamed; we want to be careful to avoid cacheing some kind of "this +directory was not renamed" statement. If we did, then a subsequent +commit being rebased could add a file to the old directory, and the +user would expect it to end up in the correct directory -- something +our erroneous "this directory was not renamed" cache would preclude. diff --git a/Documentation/technical/sparse-index.txt b/Documentation/technical/sparse-index.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..3b24c1a219 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/technical/sparse-index.txt @@ -0,0 +1,208 @@ +Git Sparse-Index Design Document +================================ + +The sparse-checkout feature allows users to focus a working directory on +a subset of the files at HEAD. The cone mode patterns, enabled by +`core.sparseCheckoutCone`, allow for very fast pattern matching to +discover which files at HEAD belong in the sparse-checkout cone. + +Three important scale dimensions for a Git working directory are: + +* `HEAD`: How many files are present at `HEAD`? + +* Populated: How many files are within the sparse-checkout cone. + +* Modified: How many files has the user modified in the working directory? + +We will use big-O notation -- O(X) -- to denote how expensive certain +operations are in terms of these dimensions. + +These dimensions are ordered by their magnitude: users (typically) modify +fewer files than are populated, and we can only populate files at `HEAD`. + +Problems occur if there is an extreme imbalance in these dimensions. For +example, if `HEAD` contains millions of paths but the populated set has +only tens of thousands, then commands like `git status` and `git add` can +be dominated by operations that require O(`HEAD`) operations instead of +O(Populated). Primarily, the cost is in parsing and rewriting the index, +which is filled primarily with files at `HEAD` that are marked with the +`SKIP_WORKTREE` bit. + +The sparse-index intends to take these commands that read and modify the +index from O(`HEAD`) to O(Populated). To do this, we need to modify the +index format in a significant way: add "sparse directory" entries. + +With cone mode patterns, it is possible to detect when an entire +directory will have its contents outside of the sparse-checkout definition. +Instead of listing all of the files it contains as individual entries, a +sparse-index contains an entry with the directory name, referencing the +object ID of the tree at `HEAD` and marked with the `SKIP_WORKTREE` bit. +If we need to discover the details for paths within that directory, we +can parse trees to find that list. + +At time of writing, sparse-directory entries violate expectations about the +index format and its in-memory data structure. There are many consumers in +the codebase that expect to iterate through all of the index entries and +see only files. In fact, these loops expect to see a reference to every +staged file. One way to handle this is to parse trees to replace a +sparse-directory entry with all of the files within that tree as the index +is loaded. However, parsing trees is slower than parsing the index format, +so that is a slower operation than if we left the index alone. The plan is +to make all of these integrations "sparse aware" so this expansion through +tree parsing is unnecessary and they use fewer resources than when using a +full index. + +The implementation plan below follows four phases to slowly integrate with +the sparse-index. The intention is to incrementally update Git commands to +interact safely with the sparse-index without significant slowdowns. This +may not always be possible, but the hope is that the primary commands that +users need in their daily work are dramatically improved. + +Phase I: Format and initial speedups +------------------------------------ + +During this phase, Git learns to enable the sparse-index and safely parse +one. Protections are put in place so that every consumer of the in-memory +data structure can operate with its current assumption of every file at +`HEAD`. + +At first, every index parse will call a helper method, +`ensure_full_index()`, which scans the index for sparse-directory entries +(pointing to trees) and replaces them with the full list of paths (with +blob contents) by parsing tree objects. This will be slower in all cases. +The only noticeable change in behavior will be that the serialized index +file contains sparse-directory entries. + +To start, we use a new required index extension, `sdir`, to allow +inserting sparse-directory entries into indexes with file format +versions 2, 3, and 4. This prevents Git versions that do not understand +the sparse-index from operating on one, while allowing tools that do not +understand the sparse-index to operate on repositories as long as they do +not interact with the index. A new format, index v5, will be introduced +that includes sparse-directory entries by default. It might also +introduce other features that have been considered for improving the +index, as well. + +Next, consumers of the index will be guarded against operating on a +sparse-index by inserting calls to `ensure_full_index()` or +`expand_index_to_path()`. If a specific path is requested, then those will +be protected from within the `index_file_exists()` and `index_name_pos()` +API calls: they will call `ensure_full_index()` if necessary. The +intention here is to preserve existing behavior when interacting with a +sparse-checkout. We don't want a change to happen by accident, without +tests. Many of these locations may not need any change before removing the +guards, but we should not do so without tests to ensure the expected +behavior happens. + +It may be desirable to _change_ the behavior of some commands in the +presence of a sparse index or more generally in any sparse-checkout +scenario. In such cases, these should be carefully communicated and +tested. No such behavior changes are intended during this phase. + +During a scan of the codebase, not every iteration of the cache entries +needs an `ensure_full_index()` check. The basic reasons include: + +1. The loop is scanning for entries with non-zero stage. These entries + are not collapsed into a sparse-directory entry. + +2. The loop is scanning for submodules. These entries are not collapsed + into a sparse-directory entry. + +3. The loop is part of the index API, especially around reading or + writing the format. + +4. The loop is checking for correct order of cache entries and that is + correct if and only if the sparse-directory entries are in the correct + location. + +5. The loop ignores entries with the `SKIP_WORKTREE` bit set, or is + otherwise already aware of sparse directory entries. + +6. The sparse-index is disabled at this point when using the split-index + feature, so no effort is made to protect the split-index API. + +Even after inserting these guards, we will keep expanding sparse-indexes +for most Git commands using the `command_requires_full_index` repository +setting. This setting will be on by default and disabled one builtin at a +time until we have sufficient confidence that all of the index operations +are properly guarded. + +To complete this phase, the commands `git status` and `git add` will be +integrated with the sparse-index so that they operate with O(Populated) +performance. They will be carefully tested for operations within and +outside the sparse-checkout definition. + +Phase II: Careful integrations +------------------------------ + +This phase focuses on ensuring that all index extensions and APIs work +well with a sparse-index. This requires significant increases to our test +coverage, especially for operations that interact with the working +directory outside of the sparse-checkout definition. Some of these +behaviors may not be the desirable ones, such as some tests already +marked for failure in `t1092-sparse-checkout-compatibility.sh`. + +The index extensions that may require special integrations are: + +* FS Monitor +* Untracked cache + +While integrating with these features, we should look for patterns that +might lead to better APIs for interacting with the index. Coalescing +common usage patterns into an API call can reduce the number of places +where sparse-directories need to be handled carefully. + +Phase III: Important command speedups +------------------------------------- + +At this point, the patterns for testing and implementing sparse-directory +logic should be relatively stable. This phase focuses on updating some of +the most common builtins that use the index to operate as O(Populated). +Here is a potential list of commands that could be valuable to integrate +at this point: + +* `git commit` +* `git checkout` +* `git merge` +* `git rebase` + +Hopefully, commands such as `git merge` and `git rebase` can benefit +instead from merge algorithms that do not use the index as a data +structure, such as the merge-ORT strategy. As these topics mature, we +may enable the ORT strategy by default for repositories using the +sparse-index feature. + +Along with `git status` and `git add`, these commands cover the majority +of users' interactions with the working directory. In addition, we can +integrate with these commands: + +* `git grep` +* `git rm` + +These have been proposed as some whose behavior could change when in a +repo with a sparse-checkout definition. It would be good to include this +behavior automatically when using a sparse-index. Some clarity is needed +to make the behavior switch clear to the user. + +This phase is the first where parallel work might be possible without too +much conflicts between topics. + +Phase IV: The long tail +----------------------- + +This last phase is less a "phase" and more "the new normal" after all of +the previous work. + +To start, the `command_requires_full_index` option could be removed in +favor of expanding only when hitting an API guard. + +There are many Git commands that could use special attention to operate as +O(Populated), while some might be so rare that it is acceptable to leave +them with additional overhead when a sparse-index is present. + +Here are some commands that might be useful to update: + +* `git sparse-checkout set` +* `git am` +* `git clean` +* `git stash` |