From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, HTTP_EXCESSIVE_ESCAPES,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6C571F461 for ; Sun, 19 May 2019 01:12:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727008AbfESBM1 (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 May 2019 21:12:27 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:51103 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726076AbfESBM0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 May 2019 21:12:26 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD62E6282B; Sat, 18 May 2019 21:12:21 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=lt5tFtHp/62t4Mjzt8CHIm+VZKI=; b=qSX5IO OQ8V3jnuzgpRpDTsc3Cm0vuYLwv6TtliYEEVt/AulpYMayacxc1G15ttea7kynjN jeHaCCVgBE0uC71ADU7cQZB6ykZW/0uQZJ8J1O5jJWxBDosGK2cnglx3PjSRPZsg AHWhqZVjVAKVf5uEc6zG9Xkft6m7f9kweh/lU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=q+DUlXvXufOpysf6kN1rSxU9IREt2VjV mTqgKh5kAexnukOCqkNzYQaYDdSsuwTeftwYYGqDEZ2rXz9JTnUAlbBynRIhBB9t udrJuM+FgmTnECGdZF/0a0tb40d+cpD9TyY4a17gWgos61C7dfcnF5wtWFSFdrDV GX7D8ItQnVg= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C71AA6282A; Sat, 18 May 2019 21:12:21 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.255.141]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 04C0362825; Sat, 18 May 2019 21:12:18 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Matthew DeVore Cc: Matthew DeVore , jonathantanmy@google.com, jrn@google.com, git@vger.kernel.org, dstolee@microsoft.com, jeffhost@microsoft.com, jrnieder@gmail.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] list-objects-filter: implement composite filters References: <20190514001610.GA136746@google.com> <02a8c9b017d8df056d7e90aff907d6e0b5506467.1558030802.git.matvore@google.com> <1E174CAA-BD57-400B-A83B-4AABFAFBC04B@comcast.net> Date: Sun, 19 May 2019 10:12:16 +0900 In-Reply-To: <1E174CAA-BD57-400B-A83B-4AABFAFBC04B@comcast.net> (Matthew DeVore's message of "Fri, 17 May 2019 06:17:43 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 25C6A4C8-79D3-11E9-B349-8D86F504CC47-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Matthew DeVore writes: > My justification for the URL-encoding scheme is: > ... > 3. Continuing to use a single filter line seemed the least > disruptive considering both this codebase and Git clones like > JGit. Other clones will likely fail saying "unknown filter > combine:" or something like that until it gets implemented. A > paranoid consideration is that clones and proprietary server > implementations may currently allow the "filter" line to be > silently overridden if it is repeated. > > 4. Assuming we *do* use a single filter line over the wire, it > makes sense to allow the user to specify the raw filter line as > well as have the more friendly UI of repeating --filter flags. > > 5. If we use repeated "filter" lines over the wire, and later > start implementing a more complete DSL for specifying filters (see > Mercurial's "revsets") the repeated-filter-line feature in the > protocol may end up becoming deprecated and we will end up > back-pedaling to allow integration of the "&" operator with > whatever new operators we need. OK, that's fair. > 1. Allow anything to be encoded. I chose this because it's how I > usually think of URL encoding working. For instance, if I go to > https://public-inbox.org/git/?q=cod%65+coverage in Chrome, the > browser automatically decodes the %65 to an e in the address > bar. Safari does not automatically decode, but the server > apparently interprets the %65 as an e. I am not really attached to > this choice. OK, so the rule is "when you see 'combine:' (this part is never encoded), take the rest as a single string, separate it at '+' (these pluses are never encoded), and URLdecode each part---each of these parts is a filter", which totally makes sense. I somehow didn't see that clearly written in your description.