Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] WIP Partial clone part 1: object filtering

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 11:01:46 +0900

Jonathan Tan <[email-masked]> writes:

> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:00 PM, Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> OK, thanks for working well together.  So does this (1) build on
>> Jonathan's fsck-squelching series, or (2) ignores that and builds
>> filtering first, potentially leaving the codebase to a broken state
>> where it can create fsck-unclean repository until Jonathan's series
>> is rebased on top of this, or (3) something else?  [*1*]
>
> Excluding the partialclone patch (patch 9), I think that the answer is
> (2), but I don't think that it leaves the codebase in a broken state.
> In particular, none of the code modifies the repo, so it can't create
> a fsck-unclean one.

OK.  It is not dangerous enough to matter until we start using the
updated features in repack->rev-list|pack-objects ;-)  As I said, I
was mostly interested in learning what the big-picture direction was
and also seeing you two were more-or-less in agreement.

> The above is relevant only if we can exclude the partialclone patch,
> but I think that we can and we should, as I wrote in my reply to Jeff
> Hostetler [1].

OK.

> As for how this patch set (excluding the partialclone patch) interacts
> with my fsck series, they are relatively independent, as far as I can
> tell. I'll rebase my fsck, gc, and lazy object fetch patches (but not
> the fetch and clone parts, which we plan to instead adapt from Jeff
> Hostetler's patches, as far as I know) on top of these and resend
> those out once discussion on this has settled.

OK.  Thanks, I think tht is a reasonable way forward.

> [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/CAGf8dg+8AR=[email-masked]/
>
>> I also saw a patch marked as "this is from Jonathan's earlier work",
>> taking the authorship (which to me implies that the changes were
>> extensive enough), so I am a bit at loss envisioning how this piece
>> fits in the bigger picture together with the other piece.
>
> The patch you mentioned is the partialclone patch, which I think can
> be considered separately from the rest (as I said above).

Good, that lets us sidestep Jeff's question about "how should the
credits for this change attributed?", too.