Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jul 2019, #03; Fri, 12)
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Jul 15, 2019, 17:25 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqpnmb43cj.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20190714231558.GA24609@comcast.net>
Matthew DeVore <matvore@comcast.net> writes:
Show 29 quoted lines
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 02:02:52PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> * md/list-objects-filter-combo (2019-06-28) 10 commits >> - list-objects-filter-options: make parser void >> - list-objects-filter-options: clean up use of ALLOC_GROW >> - list-objects-filter-options: allow mult. --filter >> - strbuf: give URL-encoding API a char predicate fn >> - list-objects-filter-options: make filter_spec a string_list >> - list-objects-filter-options: move error check up >> - list-objects-filter: implement composite filters >> - list-objects-filter-options: always supply *errbuf >> - list-objects-filter: put omits set in filter struct >> - list-objects-filter: encapsulate filter components >> >> The list-objects-filter API (used to create a sparse/lazy clone) >> learned to take a combined filter specification. >> >> There is a bit of interaction with cc/multi-promisor topic, whose >> conflict resolution I have no confidence in X-<. Extra sets of >> eyes are appreciated. >> > > Sorry for the delay. I was on vacation and then catching up for a week after I > got back. I uploaded a merged commit here: > > https://github.com/matvore/git/tree/filts > > And the merged file itself (only this one had conflicts) is here: > > https://github.com/matvore/git/blob/filts/list-objects-filter.c
Thanks. I fetched the 'filts' branch and found:
(1) master..filts~1 matches the copy I have above exactly (modulo
my sign-off and committer identity, of course); (2) if I merge cc/multi-promisor on top of filts~1 using the machinery
I use to rebuild 'pu' every day, I get more-or-less the same result
as your 'filt' branch (modulo formatting and minor comments).So it does look like the conflict resolution I have been carrying is something you would agree on, which is a good news ;-) Thanks.
Show 7 quoted lines
> I'll comment on the conflicts: > ... > md/list-objects-filter-combo changed the contract of this function such that an > attempt to combine filter specs will terminate with BUG rather than return an > error. All the callers already check filter_options.choice, so this is still > fine (it particular, I double-checked partial_clone_get_default_filter_spec and > its call site at builtin/fetch.c:1524)
OK, thanks for being careful.
Show 35 quoted lines
>
>> /*
>> * Record the initial filter-spec in the config as
>> * the default for subsequent fetches from this remote.
>> */
>> ++<<<<<<< md/list-objects-filter-combo
>> + core_partial_clone_filter_default =
>> + xstrdup(expand_list_objects_filter_spec(filter_options));
>> + git_config_set("core.partialclonefilter",
>> + core_partial_clone_filter_default);
>> ++||||||| merged common ancestors
>> ++ core_partial_clone_filter_default =
>> ++ xstrdup(filter_options->filter_spec);
>> ++ git_config_set("core.partialclonefilter",
>> ++ core_partial_clone_filter_default);
>> ++=======
>> + filter_name = xstrfmt("remote.%s.partialclonefilter", remote);
>> + git_config_set(filter_name, filter_options->filter_spec);
>> + free(filter_name);
>> +
>> + /* Make sure the config info are reset */
>> + promisor_remote_reinit();
>> ++>>>>>>> cc/multi-promisor
>> }
>>
>> void partial_clone_get_default_filter_spec(
>
> md/list-objects-filter-combo used the expand_list_objects_filter_spec function
> to expand the filter spec string rather than get it directly. So the merged
> result simply applies that alteration to cc/multi-promisor.
>
> I checked whether callers to this function (partial_clone_register) would ever
> give a null filter_options (or a non-null with a NULL filter_spec) and both
> calls are guarded by "if (filter_options.choice)" so filter_options.filter_spec
> should also be set.Good. This was the part I was most unsure about.
Thanks.