Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] support for filtering trees and blobs based on depth

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jan 15, 2019, 23:35 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqftttpk8w.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190109180633.10273-1-jonathantanmy@google.com>

Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> writes:

Show 16 quoted lines

>> This applies suggestions from Jonathan Tan and Junio. These are mostly
>> stylistic and readability changes, although there is also an added test case
>> in t/t6112-rev-list-filters-objects.sh which checks for the scenario when
>> filtering which would exclude a blob, but the blob is given on the command
>> line.
>> 
>> This has been rebased onto master, while the prior version was based on next.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>
> Thanks, these 2 patches are Reviewed-by: me.
>
> Your approach in the 2nd patch makes more sense, and I checked that both
> oidset_insert() and oidset_remove() return 1 when the element in
> question was in the set (prior to invocation of the function), so that
> works.

This is turning out to be messier than I like.

The topic is tangled with too many things in flight and I think I reduced its dependencies down to nd/the-index and sb/more-repo-in-api plus then-current tip of master (and that is why it is based on a1411cecc7), but it seems that it wants a bit more than that; builtin/rebase.c at its tip does not even compile, so I'll need to wiggle the topic before it can go to 'next'.

And worse yet, it seems that filter-options-should-use-plain-int topic depends on this topic in turn as it wants to use LOFC_TREEE_DEPTH.