On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:42 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > What is curious is that this does not touch Documentation/ hierarchy > at all---is that a sign that nobody makes any serious use of the > --filter=... thing and we can freely drop "features" around it when > we see it necessary (like in this case)? I just forgot about the Documentation. > Or do we need something like this on top (or squashed in)? I can > live with or without "Note that..." myself. Yeah, I will squash something like what you suggest soon. > Documentation/rev-list-options.txt | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt > index ddbc1de43f..73aafea8d6 100644 > --- a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt > +++ b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt > @@ -725,9 +725,6 @@ specification contained in the blob (or blob-expression) '<blob-ish>' > to omit blobs that would not be not required for a sparse checkout on > the requested refs. > + > -The form '--filter=sparse:path=<path>' similarly uses a sparse-checkout > -specification contained in <path>. > -+ > The form '--filter=tree:<depth>' omits all blobs and trees whose depth > from the root tree is >= <depth> (minimum depth if an object is located > at multiple depths in the commits traversed). <depth>=0 will not include > @@ -737,6 +734,9 @@ tree and blobs which are referenced directly by a commit reachable from > <commit> or an explicitly-given object. <depth>=2 is like <depth>=1 > while also including trees and blobs one more level removed from an > explicitly-given commit or tree. > ++ > +Note that the form '--filter=sparse:path=<path>' that wants to read from > +an arbitrary path on the filesystem is not supported, for security reasons. I'd rather say: "Note that the form '--filter=sparse:path=<path>' that wants to read from an arbitrary path on the filesystem has been dropped for security reasons." to be more consistent with the error message (that Matthew suggested in a comment following my initial RFC patch). Thanks, Christian.
