Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Partial clone part 1: object filtering
- From
- Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com>
- Date
- Nov 3, 2017, 13:43 UTC
- Message-ID
- <bd41699f-19c7-02a0-0af1-8f22b3277a1b@jeffhostetler.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20171102124445.fbffd43521cd35f6a71e1851@google.com>
On 11/2/2017 3:44 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote:
Show 26 quoted lines
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 17:50:07 +0000 > Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com> wrote: > >> From: Jeff Hostetler <jeffhost@microsoft.com> >> >> Here is V2 of the list-object filtering. It replaces [1] >> and reflect a refactoring and simplification of the original. > > Thanks, overall this looks quite good. I reviewed patches 2-6 (skipping > 1 since it's already in next), made my comments on 4, and don't have any > for the rest (besides what's below). > >> I've added "--filter-ignore-missing" parameter to rev-list and >> pack-objects to ignore missing objects rather than error out. >> This allows this patch series to better stand on its own eliminates >> the need in part 1 for "patch 9" from V1. >> >> This is a brute force ignore all missing objects. Later, in part >> 2 or part 3 when --exclude-promisor-objects is introduced, we will >> be able to ignore EXPECTED missing objects. > > (This is regarding patches 5 and 6.) Is the intention to support both > flags? (That is, --ignore-missing to ignore without checking whether the > object being missing is not unexpected, and --exclude-promisor-objects > to check and ignore.) >
Yes, I thought we should have both (perhaps renamed or combined into 1 parameter with value, such as --exclude=missing vs --exclude=promisor) and let the user decide how strict they want to be.
Jeff