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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, T_DKIM_INVALID 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 2C06D1F404 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2018 16:17:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729424AbeHOTK3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Aug 2018 15:10:29 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f41.google.com ([209.85.221.41]:43686 "EHLO mail-wr1-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729376AbeHOTK3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Aug 2018 15:10:29 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f41.google.com with SMTP id b15-v6so1582175wrv.10 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2018 09:17:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=0YLeHwIWeIh9uwiRUqHxUJl2ZNlDsLsAIon/8D7GjOQ=; b=kv8hMIpuvDrUf2q1lHq+55D6TCHPrNjx20SpuN4A1BwlUWM3wEmjld6m08aR5F3le9 SvHNllWqBMH9z5gMZlld18wJVfU6tvdYD+Ix54ytUmGocB0HjA15JkKRdV0iYNEa0VnW kHwUuFaHlvWY1mh2NGoChUf5zz8beSmSQumRnM3n6gsjeVVlsn2LJm5Dv5/VPbdezli9 lC2IRGewt1YdMDI4OQS3g7rfG+SprfjwgsJx5Sc7J2czPyuZAHgfUePZFthE9X0T56Q4 ZqNSLR1ujN3N0pwu+1Ne6rbhxOQhxiN9imirHi1+ehIuDGU3QWtYKKRXZNmIr8uVv3Hh /Z/Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=0YLeHwIWeIh9uwiRUqHxUJl2ZNlDsLsAIon/8D7GjOQ=; b=PNkTnuPi9TaZIXa0NW2bo+d31WzmqINfqWZm9bRhSr36qbFlpma9F/CyMMyrjZFHZ2 TbJe7c68fT0nKiaVgWBlgYgNtVb2ZprZccPunF66ywjZTihrcBllltRGOG8WAYVByzw/ WzwsE+DEqTYzM6zF+DT+Gmy7E9OjL2E8yEJZSFGAan7kwaM2oQRQlHO8lCVoeQiIGexH PwGrQDyz9uERqCoJBmDfDMZqpu36udEYgOlANOIRCT8OZD1ULIfGkXznhKFaMkDwxQ9y enpMaE2BcOgb7k3vEj712llVNKkLqhBIFkiE/q1tV75C30oPhPR8kK4bmWKXgakjYxrh QBSQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlHLUyJ+w75wcnTN3xD0N/6/YL1GwElD3GHx9lag4G0C3NT1LKGZ xZI2XS6AwbuugDHkxB/6Ni0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA+uWPxxg7/SjNeGU/2e8YBryjgssHsTyXG2c3RAHQfPUG0Wz81Rxgz97WI6uPpGR14tgjgkgWUeDA== X-Received: by 2002:adf:fec8:: with SMTP id q8-v6mr16223318wrs.164.1534349860701; Wed, 15 Aug 2018 09:17:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (112.68.155.104.bc.googleusercontent.com. [104.155.68.112]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h5-v6sm24101393wrr.19.2018.08.15.09.17.39 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 15 Aug 2018 09:17:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Matthew DeVore , git@vger.kernel.org, git@jeffhostetler.com, jeffhost@microsoft.com, Stefan Beller , Jonathan Tan Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] list-objects-filter: implement filter tree:0 References: <05e69ef260ca2b28b2444b94850bddf44ca0388a.1534267611.git.matvore@google.com> <20180814200154.GF28452@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20180815012224.GA4745@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 09:17:39 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20180815012224.GA4745@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Tue, 14 Aug 2018 21:22:24 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > Right, I'd agree they probably want the minimum for that traversal. And > for `rev-list --filter`, that's probably OK. But keep in mind the main > goal for --filter is using it for fetches, and many servers do not > perform the traversal at all. Instead they use reachability bitmaps to > come up with the set of objects to send. The bitmaps have enough > information to say "remove all trees from the set", but not enough to do > any kind of depth-based calculation (not even "is this a root tree"). If the depth-based cutoff turns out to make sense (on which I haven't formed an opinion yet), newer version of pack bitmaps could store that information ;-) How are these "fitler" expressions negotiated between the fetcher and uploader? Does a "fetch-patch" say "am I allowed to ask you to filter with tree:4?" and refrain from using the option when "upload-pack" says "no"?