Matthew DeVore <matv...@comcast.net> writes:
> 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.
> 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.
>
>> /*
>> * 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.
