Matthew DeVore <matvore@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 02:02:52PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> * md/list-objects-filter-combo (2019-06-28) 10 commits >> - list-objects-filter-options: make parser void >> - list-objects-filter-options: clean up use of ALLOC_GROW >> - list-objects-filter-options: allow mult. --filter >> - strbuf: give URL-encoding API a char predicate fn >> - list-objects-filter-options: make filter_spec a string_list >> - list-objects-filter-options: move error check up >> - list-objects-filter: implement composite filters >> - list-objects-filter-options: always supply *errbuf >> - list-objects-filter: put omits set in filter struct >> - list-objects-filter: encapsulate filter components >> >> The list-objects-filter API (used to create a sparse/lazy clone) >> learned to take a combined filter specification. >> >> There is a bit of interaction with cc/multi-promisor topic, whose >> conflict resolution I have no confidence in X-<. Extra sets of >> eyes are appreciated. >> > > Sorry for the delay. I was on vacation and then catching up for a week after I > got back. I uploaded a merged commit here: > > https://github.com/matvore/git/tree/filts > > And the merged file itself (only this one had conflicts) is here: > > https://github.com/matvore/git/blob/filts/list-objects-filter.c Thanks. I fetched the 'filts' branch and found: (1) master..filts~1 matches the copy I have above exactly (modulo my sign-off and committer identity, of course); (2) if I merge cc/multi-promisor on top of filts~1 using the machinery I use to rebuild 'pu' every day, I get more-or-less the same result as your 'filt' branch (modulo formatting and minor comments). So it does look like the conflict resolution I have been carrying is something you would agree on, which is a good news ;-) Thanks. > I'll comment on the conflicts: > ... > md/list-objects-filter-combo changed the contract of this function such that an > attempt to combine filter specs will terminate with BUG rather than return an > error. All the callers already check filter_options.choice, so this is still > fine (it particular, I double-checked partial_clone_get_default_filter_spec and > its call site at builtin/fetch.c:1524) OK, thanks for being careful. > >> /* >> * Record the initial filter-spec in the config as >> * the default for subsequent fetches from this remote. >> */ >> ++<<<<<<< md/list-objects-filter-combo >> + core_partial_clone_filter_default = >> + xstrdup(expand_list_objects_filter_spec(filter_options)); >> + git_config_set("core.partialclonefilter", >> + core_partial_clone_filter_default); >> ++||||||| merged common ancestors >> ++ core_partial_clone_filter_default = >> ++ xstrdup(filter_options->filter_spec); >> ++ git_config_set("core.partialclonefilter", >> ++ core_partial_clone_filter_default); >> ++======= >> + filter_name = xstrfmt("remote.%s.partialclonefilter", remote); >> + git_config_set(filter_name, filter_options->filter_spec); >> + free(filter_name); >> + >> + /* Make sure the config info are reset */ >> + promisor_remote_reinit(); >> ++>>>>>>> cc/multi-promisor >> } >> >> void partial_clone_get_default_filter_spec( > > md/list-objects-filter-combo used the expand_list_objects_filter_spec function > to expand the filter spec string rather than get it directly. So the merged > result simply applies that alteration to cc/multi-promisor. > > I checked whether callers to this function (partial_clone_register) would ever > give a null filter_options (or a non-null with a NULL filter_spec) and both > calls are guarded by "if (filter_options.choice)" so filter_options.filter_spec > should also be set. Good. This was the part I was most unsure about. Thanks.
