Re: [PATCH 00/13] WIP Partial clone part 1: object filtering

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

 



On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Jeff Hostetler <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Jeff Hostetler <jeffhost@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I've been working with Jonathan Tan to combine our partial clone
> proposals.  This patch series represents a first step in that effort
> and introduces an object filtering mechanism to select unwanted
> objects.
>
> [1] traverse_commit_list and list-objects is extended to allow
>     various filters.
> [2] rev-list is extended to expose filtering.  This allows testing
>     of the filtering options.  And can be used later to predict
>     missing objects before commands like checkout or merge.
> [3] pack-objects is extended to use filtering parameters and build
>     packfiles that omit unwanted objects.
>
> This patch series lays the ground work for subsequent parts which
> will extend clone, fetch, fetch-pack, upload-pack, fsck, and etc.

Thanks - I've taken a look at all of them except for the partialclone
extension one, which I've only glanced over briefly. Apart from some
style issues (indentation and typedef-ing of enums) I think that they
generally look all right.

One possible issue with using a formatted filter string (e.g.
blob:none) directly passed to the server as opposed to actual
client-interpreted flags (e.g. --blob-byte-limit=0) is that a user may
be confused if the version of Git they're using supports fancier
filters, which will work if they're running rev-list locally, but not
when they're fetching from a not-so-fancy Git server. Maybe that is
fine, though - something we've discussed internally is an ability to
offload some calculations (e.g. git log -S) to Git servers, and if we
end up doing something similar to that, users will need to deal with
this problem anyway.

The reason why I only glanced over the partialclone patch is because I
think that that change needs more discussion than the rest, and it
would be good to get the others in first. I know that you included the
partialclone patch because it is needed by the rev-list one, but as I
commented in the rev-list one, I think that it does not need to be
aware of partial clones, at least for now. The overall ideas in the
partialclone patch seem good, though - in particular, one conceptual
difference from my patch [1] is that the filter setting is a property
of the repository as opposed to the remote, which does seem like an
improvement, because it makes it easier to make and explain e.g. a
"git log --use-repo-filter -S" command that uses the preconfigured
config.

[1] https://public-inbox.org/git/407a298b52a9e0a2ee4135fe844e35b9a14c0f7b.1506714999.git.jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx/



[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]

  Powered by Linux