Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/13] pack-objects: integrate --path-walk and some --filter options

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2026 08:44:17 +0900

Taylor Blau <[email-masked]> writes:

> On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 06:24:24PM +0000, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:
>> Range-diff vs v4:
>>
>>   1:  0840110116 =  1:  0840110116 t5620: make test work with path-walk var
>>   2:  d7c87545f3 =  2:  d7c87545f3 pack-objects: pass --objects with --path-walk
>>   3:  fb8a0f9c43 !  3:  697ef716d2 t/perf: add pack-objects filter and path-walk benchmark
>>      @@ t/perf/p5315-pack-objects-filter.sh (new)
>>       +		awk "{print \$4;}" >top-dirs &&
>>       +	top_nr=$(wc -l <top-dirs) &&
>>       +
>>      -+	>depth2-dirs &&
>>       +	while read tdir
>>       +	do
>>      -+		git ls-tree -d --name-only "HEAD:$tdir" 2>/dev/null || return 1
>>      -+	done <top-dirs >depth2-dirs.raw &&
>>      -+	sed "s|^|$tdir/|" <depth2-dirs.raw >depth2-dirs &&
>>      ++		git ls-tree -d --format="$tdir/%(path)" "HEAD:$tdir" || return 1
>>      ++	done <top-dirs >depth2-dirs &&
>>       +
>>       +	d2_nr=$(wc -l <depth2-dirs) &&
>>       +
>>   4:  e77c8a6bbc =  4:  91845bcef0 path-walk: always emit directly-requested objects
>>   5:  f4904f81e0 =  5:  fdb9361198 path-walk: support blobless filter
>>   6:  f37467e46f =  6:  89726faf7e backfill: die on incompatible filter options
>>   7:  133c1b156c =  7:  3884d4737f path-walk: support blob size limit filter
>>   8:  0f517be8e3 =  8:  31b4ef0fa1 path-walk: add pl_sparse_trees to control tree pruning
>>   9:  b4dc09ab69 =  9:  7d8f0aa036 pack-objects: support sparse:oid filter with path-walk
>>  10:  0b1eed0790 = 10:  a68676d0de t6601: tag otherwise-unreachable trees
>>  11:  b23244c4c2 = 11:  b0db73c6cc path-walk: support `tree:0` filter
>>  12:  7e1e503361 = 12:  6845988f50 path-walk: support `object:type` filter
>>  13:  a615b1a707 = 13:  d33d899251 path-walk: support `combine` filter
>
> The range-diff looks good to me. Thanks!

Good.  And as you in <[email-masked]> were already
happy with everything else in the previous iteration of this series,
not just the changes the range-diff output shows, but also the
non-changes from the previous iteration, look good to you ;-).

Let's mark the topic for 'next'.  Thanks, both.