Re: [PATCH 07/13] object-filter: common declarations for object filtering

From: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
Date: Sep 29, 2017, 19:47 UTC
Message-ID: <20170929124703.29539de1a7a72c34e7d8ebe5@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <3cab0259-f20e-5913-d886-e37c4da9fd04@jeffhostetler.com>

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:33:39 -0400 Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com> wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> Maybe.  What I have here now is the result of adding these arguments to
> rev-list and pack-objects (in the current patch series), and also to
> fetch-pack, fetch, clone, upload-pack, index-pack, and the transport and
> protocol code (in a follow-on patch series that I've omitted for the moment).
> And there will probably be a few more, such as fsck, gc, and etc.  I hesitate
> to refine the macros too much further until we've agreement on the overall
> approach and terms.

Fair enough. My current opinion on the overall approach (others might
differ, of course):
 - Filtering based on a sparse checkout specification in rev-list and
   pack-objects sounds useful to me, and is worth the filtering
   mechanism.
 - Filtering based on size (or based on type) still doesn't seem useful
   to me in rev-list, but if we're going to implement the filtering
   mechanism anyway, we might as well use the mechanism.
 - Besides my comments in [1], I think the API could still be slightly
   better organized. For example, object-filter probably should be the
   one to define the traverse_ function that takes in struct
   object_filter_options, and optionally a set of excluded objects to
   populate.

[1] https://public-inbox.org/git/20170927170533.65498396e008fa148a3fda90@google.com/