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: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 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,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CC321F4B4 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 22:06:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236156AbhDPWGh (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Apr 2021 18:06:37 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:51559 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235666AbhDPWGh (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Apr 2021 18:06:37 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F7DBB03E1; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 18:06:11 -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=31VirPXeH4kAXBeGxNZq74hocRQ=; b=VDNNsZ WrdihopbrTQcn8J9NNPVUlVxlWAzDJKwMUwjKvY+2eAQUU0z831vTnTt6KeIASck ffGIRwGw67zJBgXJ0hZHQjazJoV+P95ZqpwM8bebJpisQhmImLOZKOzRt8XIsvqG eNXs1mBghFZBzYMsJEfBQai43OdNJWJ2AKtBg= 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=PsbcgtaedgkkdbPJHj2+nTH09lEQ/A2M fRszYq9h3XCVmP+p4ZBw0cbQezLa2bwIF92fcdgIFzeArwsEifP8qFKnW26U0f18 bZthxl7R+Sdl4eMFuXfjjefv+/SWt3wL7zn29/4JPqQT2HndyfKRbASov29UMtB1 OFrQpt8hP6k= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87746B03E0; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 18:06:11 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1BD9CB03DF; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 18:06:11 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Patrick Steinhardt , Jeff King Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Christian Couder , Taylor Blau , Philip Oakley Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/8] rev-list: implement object type filter References: Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 15:06:10 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Jeff King's message of "Thu, 15 Apr 2021 05:42:33 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: F3EEA172-9EFF-11EB-8003-D152C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: >> Furthermore, the filter also allows future iterations which build on top >> of this. If we had a combined OR filter in addition to the existing >> combined AND filter, the user could say "Give me all blobs which aren't >> bigger than a specific size PLUS all trees with a depth smaller than 5 >> PLUS all commits and tags". It's not like I'd know of a specific usecase >> for this right now, but I think the potential of having such filters in >> the future is a plus. > > Yeah, that's true. My biggest complaint is lack of an OR filter, but we > could add that later. And then we would be _more_ flexible, as you note, > since we could and/or more filters. > > So I'm OK proceeding with this direction. I think the only remaining issues are the comments on 5/8 on tests, then? Hopefully we can have one more iteration to finalize the topic and merge it down to 'next'? Thanks.