On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 3:20 PM Matthew DeVore <matvore@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 2:42 PM Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 4:23 PM Matthew DeVore <matvore@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Teach list-objects the "tree:0" filter which allows for filtering > > > out all tree and blob objects (unless other objects are explicitly > > > specified by the user). The purpose of this patch is to allow smaller > > > partial clones. > > > > > > The name of this filter - tree:0 - does not explicitly specify that > > > it also filters out all blobs, but this should not cause much confusion > > > because blobs are not at all useful without the trees that refer to > > > them. > > > > > > I also consider only:commits as a name, but this is inaccurate because > > > it suggests that annotated tags are omitted, but actually they are > > > included. > > > > Speaking of tag objects, it is possible to tag anything, including blobs. > > Would a blob that is tagged (hence reachable without a tree) be not > > filtered by tree:0 (or in the future any deeper depth) ? > I think so. If I try to fetch a tagged tree or blob, it should fetch > that object itself, since I'm referring to it explicitly in the git > pack-objects arguments (I mention fetch since git rev-list apparently > doesn't support specifying non-commits on the command line). This is > similar to how I can fetch a commit that would otherwise be filtered > *if* I specify it explicitly (rather than a child commit). > > If you're fetching a tagged tree, then for depth=0, it will fetch the > given tree only, and not fetch any referents of an explicitly-given > tree. For depth=1, it will fetch all direct referents. > > If you're fetching a commit, then for depth=0, you will not get any > tree objects, and for depth=1, you'll get only the root tree object > and none of its referrents. So the commit itself is like a "layer" in > the depth count. That seems smart. Thanks! > > > > > I found this series a good read, despite my unfamiliarity of the > > partial cloning. > > > > One situation where I scratched my head for a second were previous patches > > that use "test_line_count = 0 rev_list_err" whereas using test_must_be_empty > > would be an equally good choice (I am more used to the latter than the former) > > Done. Here is an interdiff (sorry, the tab characters are not > maintained by my mail client): heh. Thanks for switching the style; I should have emphasized that (after reflection) I found them equally good, I am used to one over the other more. So if that is the only issue brought up, I would not even ask for a resend. Thanks, Stefan
