From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_DKIMWL_WL_MED,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5146C1F954 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 21:42:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727206AbeHRArz (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Aug 2018 20:47:55 -0400 Received: from mail-yw1-f66.google.com ([209.85.161.66]:35417 "EHLO mail-yw1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727055AbeHRAry (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Aug 2018 20:47:54 -0400 Received: by mail-yw1-f66.google.com with SMTP id s68-v6so4911530ywg.2 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 14:42:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=N8C7Ha/4No94y/eLmiIqg3ZQuyuY2IPxtUpBIwt0YcM=; b=TENeeqyNJNbN5GvEgS/f5eTwwxJM1VS9Vd/izQ0rS8/FuRA//vpppKdfRwN8FZgv50 3cFE7Er479kuuz07UQ5L0yU6DydQBW+6YzWZPeEk3rMj07aGdvYGXBgg1Pqy1/fgb220 SYeh0y6kV9bFxC3Mq5vWDT+1R+Yma6kY5tI2Pqu2GNaQITaGtvG+7jeYx2ulasE+BI+n b15618Q6c4Dd6OHMKidYYnjQYyEiZzuFSpEQK9EqT1lrfAthP98oOEaiBjxFY9e79fsa PwFav/rRzd4v7qw4/RiSuhfbCwRLjE7E3pj/Fw1EQ0uqrXyBdPJ1zGxgxOYJyZcpyuGX QXwA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=N8C7Ha/4No94y/eLmiIqg3ZQuyuY2IPxtUpBIwt0YcM=; b=i3rTwKgH3V+/orlai55YCYjgH2I4usBBp9f0hcPYytayvU8JeED1ZibJe8JkBhSY30 qolIVtVpAsmP3f64wraYdDHAwT4rzqQece2vHl13QAt+P8Zhzb3xLXLIOhJ7qvHVaEMv eKUyO4h5e42U7/uwtmjsX40nOu2HKSdAq3FdKkPZ3x3mon72HiIU2JuXl/w/zCRj8k7+ A6mmuIl/9YpEpKAEt43ciPN48WO8uNEGPRVNfA7RlPgx6CNgm7S+SbMYbZTUyaNC6ZOH jr6v62SlZbEBYAA6Qp2VInCPmOwC6YbXLQB+0h75bdM3kRKAeW5W+HjLp1nEqGo6/YUC AL8g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlEFSXudhlTQIG+LVKpj/ytFfav00jSK55HB7LOn3oZDFSpGJdIc DOmsfgQ9Qh4R0Oxl9P2Kdzyadlit3jNrUHRmDOcqQA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA+uWPyhhKJfKZ+nLGGSjZv2fyH3Zg+HoUHrL1WllcvpQvVKRv9j9Mtc9tkCofNREQh2ZaJU0pt99VwrtZ3XjE8C+0Q= X-Received: by 2002:a81:9a17:: with SMTP id r23-v6mr21137899ywg.119.1534542171492; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 14:42:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5d3b4e4acb73009e4cefecd0965fe5dd371efea1.1534374650.git.matvore@google.com> In-Reply-To: <5d3b4e4acb73009e4cefecd0965fe5dd371efea1.1534374650.git.matvore@google.com> From: Stefan Beller Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 14:42:40 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/6] list-objects-filter: implement filter tree:0 To: Matthew DeVore Cc: git , Jeff Hostetler , Jeff Hostetler , Jeff King , Stefan Beller , Jonathan Tan , Junio C Hamano Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 4:23 PM Matthew DeVore wrote: > > Teach list-objects the "tree:0" filter which allows for filtering > out all tree and blob objects (unless other objects are explicitly > specified by the user). The purpose of this patch is to allow smaller > partial clones. > > The name of this filter - tree:0 - does not explicitly specify that > it also filters out all blobs, but this should not cause much confusion > because blobs are not at all useful without the trees that refer to > them. > > I also consider only:commits as a name, but this is inaccurate because > it suggests that annotated tags are omitted, but actually they are > included. Speaking of tag objects, it is possible to tag anything, including blobs. Would a blob that is tagged (hence reachable without a tree) be not filtered by tree:0 (or in the future any deeper depth) ? I found this series a good read, despite my unfamiliarity of the partial cloning. One situation where I scratched my head for a second were previous patches that use "test_line_count = 0 rev_list_err" whereas using test_must_be_empty would be an equally good choice (I am more used to the latter than the former) Thanks, Stefan