Re: [PATCH 00/13] WIP Partial clone part 1: object filtering

From: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
Date: Oct 25, 2017, 06:46 UTC
Message-ID: <CAGf8dg+cK3WpEqosgkbdcrDzrMXJxVYHiBZda6UM7k8Ggq=eBw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqmv4fizyn.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:00 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> OK, thanks for working well together.  So does this (1) build on
> Jonathan's fsck-squelching series, or (2) ignores that and builds
> filtering first, potentially leaving the codebase to a broken state
> where it can create fsck-unclean repository until Jonathan's series
> is rebased on top of this, or (3) something else?  [*1*]

Excluding the partialclone patch (patch 9), I think that the answer is (2), but I don't think that it leaves the codebase in a broken state. In particular, none of the code modifies the repo, so it can't create a fsck-unclean one.

Maybe one could say that this leaves the codebase with features that no one will ever use in the absence of partial clone, but I don't think that's true - rev-list with blob-size/sparse-specification filter seems independently useful, at least (for example, when desiring to operate on a repo in a sparse way without going through a workdir), and if we're planning to allow listing of objects, we probably should allow packing as well (especially since this doesn't add much code).

The above is relevant only if we can exclude the partialclone patch, but I think that we can and we should, as I wrote in my reply to Jeff Hostetler [1].

As for how this patch set (excluding the partialclone patch) interacts with my fsck series, they are relatively independent, as far as I can tell. I'll rebase my fsck, gc, and lazy object fetch patches (but not the fetch and clone parts, which we plan to instead adapt from Jeff Hostetler's patches, as far as I know) on top of these and resend those out once discussion on this has settled.

[1] https://public-inbox.org/git/CAGf8dg+8AR=XfSV92ODAtKTNjBnD1+oVZp9rs4Y4Otz_eZyTfg@mail.gmail.com/

> I also saw a patch marked as "this is from Jonathan's earlier work",
> taking the authorship (which to me implies that the changes were
> extensive enough), so I am a bit at loss envisioning how this piece
> fits in the bigger picture together with the other piece.

The patch you mentioned is the partialclone patch, which I think can be considered separately from the rest (as I said above).