On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 11:03:35AM +0100, René Scharfe wrote: > Fix a regression that prevents using multiple --filter options, simplify > the option parsing code and avoid relying on undefined behavior in it. > > Patch 3 conflicts with cc/filtered-repack in seen, but not semantically. > > Changes since v1: > - Added patch 1 to fix an issue with existing tests. > - Separate patch 2 for new tests. > - Test using blob size filters, only, which is a bit simpler. > - Test both combinations to also catch not just the current > last-one-wins regression, but also a possible future first-one-wins > issue. > - Actually revert 5cb28270a1 (pack-objects: lazily set up > "struct rev_info", don't leak, 2022-03-28) instead of having a > minimal fix and then adding some kind of middle ground by using a > separate struct list_objects_filter_options. Thanks, this looks good to me. The new test is a little funny in that it's somewhat-nonsensical input, but I find it unlikely that we'd ever add code to treat two instances of the same filter type specially. Compared to something that produces two distinct effects (like a blob and tree-depth filter combined), it also requires the "test in both directions" trick to cover everything. But I do like that it's easier to reason about what the output _should_ be. So I don't feel too strongly about it either way. -Peff
