Re: [PATCH 5/7] diff_tree(): Skip skip_uninteresting() when all remaining paths interesting

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This and the previous patch seem to make sense to me, independent of the
> rest.

Thanks.

> As to mixing pathspecs with --objects, I would say it is unfair to Linus
> to call it a bug that that particular use case has not been supported.  I'd
> say it _is_ a bug that we didn't error out when --objects was given with
> pathspec at the command line level, though, as that is a combination we
> knowingly ignored to support.
>
> It simply hasn't been deemed as a sane operation to produce a pack using
> an output from rev-list with pathspec and --objects, as it will leave some
> trees and blobs that the pack knows about in the result, without actually
> having them in it.  In the context of "narrow clone", these wounds to
> trees are deliberate, and the existence of these wounds alone is not the
> reason why I called it insane to produce such a pack.
>
> To make use of such a pack, however, you need to somehow cauterize these
> deliberate wounds in trees so that fsck, a later run of pack-objects,
> fetch-pack and friends will not choke on them.  We didn't plan to have
> such an infrastructure so far, and that is what made such a pack with
> thousands of cuts "insane".  As soon as "narrow clone" addresses that
> issue, mixture of pathspecs with --objects stops being an insane use
> case.

Well, I did call it a minor bug, because I figured no one was using it
and so it wasn't hurting anyone.  But saying you knowingly ignored
supporting it is understandable.

I understand that for this combination of options to be useful, all
the other stuff you mention needs to be done.  Duy and I are both
working on separate ways of doing that; I just figured it made sense
to submit any independent pieces early and separately.  I don't think
supporting this would hurt anyone, as I don't think anyone could
accidentally use it at this point.  However, if you'd prefer that I
submitted a patch to just error out with this combination of options
for now, and resubmit this patch later with a full sparse clone
patchset, I can do that.  (Note though that my fix for supporting both
--objects and pathspec isn't correct; there's a bug I'm looking in
to.)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]