git.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
	Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, me@ttaylorr.com, jonathantanmy@google.com,
	christian.couder@gmail.com, git@jeffhostetler.com,
	Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] partial-clone: set default filter with --partial
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 16:38:27 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2a75325b-ea50-a6f6-87dc-12184e706ac2@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqr1xmbwn1.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>



On 3/20/2020 4:26 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> diff --git a/list-objects-filter-options.c b/list-objects-filter-options.c
>> index 256bcfbdfe6..a71716ef75e 100644
>> --- a/list-objects-filter-options.c
>> +++ b/list-objects-filter-options.c
>> @@ -270,6 +270,24 @@ int opt_parse_list_objects_filter(const struct option *opt,
>>  	return 0;
>>  }
>>  
>> +int opt_set_blob_none_filter(const struct option *opt,
>> +			     const char *arg, int unset)
> 
> Isn't the convention to use "opt_parse_" for canned parse-options
> callbacks?

I can do that.

>> +{
>> +	struct strbuf filter_arg = STRBUF_INIT;
>> +	struct list_objects_filter_options *filter_options = opt->value;
>> +	
>> +	if (unset || !arg || !strcmp(arg, "0")) {
>> +		parse_list_objects_filter(filter_options, "blob:none");
>> +		return 0;
> 
> If "--no-partial" were allowed, it should be usable to countermand
> "--partial" earlier on the command line or perhaps configured
> default.  But the above (especially the "unset ||" part) makes
> "--no-partial" a synonym to "--filter=blob:none", no?

I should have been more careful about the use of "unset" (which
would never be true with the current option parsing).

>> +	}
>> +	
>> +	strbuf_addf(&filter_arg, "blob:limit=%s", arg);
>> +	parse_list_objects_filter(filter_options, filter_arg.buf);
>> +	strbuf_release(&filter_arg);
> 
> I would have expected the body of the function to read more like
> this:
> 
> 	if (unset) {
>         	... clear filter_options stored in opt->value ...
> 	} else {
> 		struct strbuf filter_arg = STRBUF_INIT;
> 		if (!arg)
> 			strbuf_addstr(&filter_arg, "blob:none");
> 		else
> 			strbuf_addf(&filter_arg, "blob:limit=%s", arg);
> 		parse_list_objects_filter(filter_options, filter_arg.buf);
> 		strbuf_release(&filter_arg);
> 	}

This is a better organization and I will use it.

> Specifically, I find it unsatisifying to see the "0" optimization at
> this level.  Shouldn't it be done in parse_list_objects_filter() to
> parse "blob:limit=<num>" and after realizing <num> is zero, pretend
> as if it got "blob:none" to optimize?  That way, people can even say
> "--partial=0k" and get it interpreted as "--filter=blob:none", right?

I suppose it would be worth checking the recent server-side improvements
to see if they translate a limit=0k to a "size 0" and then ignore the
size check and simply remove all blobs.

>>  #define OPT_PARSE_LIST_OBJECTS_FILTER(fo) \
>>  	{ OPTION_CALLBACK, 0, CL_ARG__FILTER, fo, N_("args"), \
>>  	  N_("object filtering"), 0, \
>> -	  opt_parse_list_objects_filter }
>> +	  opt_parse_list_objects_filter }, \
>> +	{ OPTION_CALLBACK, 0, CL_ARG__PARTIAL, fo, N_("size"), \
>> +	  N_("partial clone with blob filter"), \
>> +	  PARSE_OPT_OPTARG | PARSE_OPT_NONEG , opt_set_blob_none_filter }
> 
> PARSE_OPT_NONEG means "--no-partial" is forbidden and the callback
> won't see unset==1 at all, right?

You're right. I'm being inconsistent. Your reasons above point to a
good reason to have --no-partial available.

Thanks,
-Stolee

  reply	other threads:[~2020-03-20 20:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-03-19 17:28 [PATCH 0/2] Slightly simplify partial clone user experience Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
2020-03-19 17:28 ` [PATCH 1/2] partial-clone: set default filter with --partial Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
2020-03-20 20:26   ` Junio C Hamano
2020-03-20 20:38     ` Derrick Stolee [this message]
2020-03-22  9:46       ` Jeff King
2020-03-19 17:28 ` [PATCH 2/2] clone: document --partial and --filter options Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
2020-03-20 12:27 ` [PATCH 0/2] Slightly simplify partial clone user experience Derrick Stolee
2020-03-22  9:51 ` Jeff King
2020-03-22 10:58   ` Christian Couder
2020-03-22 16:45     ` Derrick Stolee
2020-03-22 19:22       ` Jeff King
2020-03-22 16:03 ` Taylor Blau
2020-03-22 19:50 ` [PATCH v2] clone: document --filter options Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
2020-03-24  3:40   ` Jeff King
2020-03-24  5:17   ` Jonathan Nieder

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=2a75325b-ea50-a6f6-87dc-12184e706ac2@gmail.com \
    --to=stolee@gmail.com \
    --cc=christian.couder@gmail.com \
    --cc=dstolee@microsoft.com \
    --cc=git@jeffhostetler.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitgitgadget@gmail.com \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=jonathantanmy@google.com \
    --cc=me@ttaylorr.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 1/2] partial-clone: set default filter with --partial' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).