Re: [PATCH] docs: clarify git-rev-list(1) --filter behavior
- From
Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com>
- Date
- Dec 16, 2025, 14:36 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xnstt6myzzfyq65w73xuqg7cfso3bdw6tw33shrery4e4gi2zy@pfxq2pjmb2hm>
- In-Reply-To
- <aUEUfQDJyPf6Mhtw@pks.im>
On 25/12/16 09:12AM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
Show 22 quoted lines
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 10:13:22AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > diff --git a/Documentation/rev-list-options.adoc b/Documentation/rev-list-options.adoc > > > index d9665d82c8..453ec59057 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/rev-list-options.adoc > > > +++ b/Documentation/rev-list-options.adoc > > > @@ -983,7 +983,9 @@ to name units in KiB, MiB, or GiB. For example, `blob:limit=1k` > > > is the same as 'blob:limit=1024'. > > > + > > > The form `--filter=object:type=(tag|commit|tree|blob)` omits all objects > > > -which are not of the requested type. > > > +which are not of the requested type. Note that explicitly provided objects > > > +ignore filters and are always printed unless `--filter-provided-objects` is > > > +also specified. > > > > The above documents the status quo correctly, so let's queue, but it > > is unfortunate that we need an extra option to do this. > > True. I didn't feel comfortable to change the default to also filter > provided objects when I discovered that we don't, hence the new option. > It's not great though as it certainly is surprising behaviour, but I'm > not sure whether we can really change it without breaking existing > users. Oh, well...
Out of curiousity, are there any known use-cases where a user _would_ want the provided objects printed along with the filtered ones? From my naive perspective it almost doesn't even sound useful and appears to just be a sharp edge. This maybe not worthing worrying too much about though.
-Justin