From: John Cai <johncai86@gmail.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: John Cai via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org,
Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] pack-refs: teach pack-refs --include option
Date: Fri, 12 May 2023 10:48:00 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <80E985AF-40B2-46F4-8873-4FA4A18B881F@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqq8rduvdj0.fsf@gitster.g>
Hi Junio,
On 11 May 2023, at 16:06, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "John Cai via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> @@ -1198,7 +1191,13 @@ static int should_pack_ref(const char *refname,
>> if (!ref_resolves_to_object(refname, the_repository, oid, ref_flags))
>> return 0;
>>
>> - return 1;
>> + if (opts->visibility && ref_excluded(opts->visibility, refname))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + if (opts->visibility && ref_included(opts->visibility, refname))
>> + return 1;
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> }
>
> When the user did not say --exclude or --include, can we not have
> opts->visibility? IOW, can opts->visiblity be NULL?
>
> Even if it can be NULL, shouldn't we be defaulting to "pack", as we
> rejected refs to be excluded already?
>
>> @@ -33,5 +38,14 @@ int cmd_pack_refs(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>> for_each_string_list_item(item, &option_excluded_refs)
>> add_ref_exclusion(pack_refs_opts.visibility, item->string);
>>
>> + for_each_string_list_item(item, &option_included_refs)
>> + add_ref_inclusion(pack_refs_opts.visibility, item->string);
>> +
>> + if (pack_refs_opts.flags & PACK_REFS_ALL)
>> + add_ref_inclusion(pack_refs_opts.visibility, "*");
>> +
>> + if (!pack_refs_opts.visibility->included_refs.nr)
>> + add_ref_inclusion(pack_refs_opts.visibility, "refs/tags/*");
>
> Given the above code, I think visibility is always non-NULL, and the
> inclusion list has at least one element. So the above "what should
> be the default?" question is theoretical. But it would be nicer if
> we do not check opts->visibility there. By writing
>
> if (opts->visibility && ref_included(opts->visibility, refname))
> return 1;
>
> you are saying "if visibility is defined and it is included, say
> YES", and logically it follows that, if we did not return true from
> here, we do not know if the end-user supplied inclusion list did not
> match (i.e. ref_included() said no), or we skipped the check because
> the end-user did not supply the visibility rule. It is easy to
> mistake that the next statement after this, i.e. "return 0;", is the
> default action when the end-user did not give any rule.
>
> But that is not what is going on. Because visibility is always
> given,
>
> The last part would become
>
> if (ref_included(opts->visibility, refname))
> return 1;
> return 0;
>
> and the "return 0" is no longer confusing. If inclusion check says
> yes, the result is "to include", otherwise the result is "not to
> include". Even shorter, we could say
>
> return !ref_excluded(opts->visibility, refname) &&
> ref_included(opts->visibility, refname) &&
>
> which we can trivially read the design decision: exclude list has
> priority, and include list is consulted only after exclude list does
> not ban it.
Yes, this is the logic. I agree that getting rid of the opts->visibility check
would make it more clear.
thanks
John
>
> Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-12 14:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-04 15:48 [PATCH] pack-refs: teach --exclude option to exclude refs from being packed John Cai via GitGitGadget
2023-05-04 16:48 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-05-04 21:26 ` John Cai
2023-05-09 19:18 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] pack-refs: Teach " John Cai via GitGitGadget
2023-05-09 19:18 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] docs: clarify git-pack-refs --all will pack all refs John Cai via GitGitGadget
2023-05-09 19:18 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] pack-refs: teach --exclude option to exclude refs from being packed John Cai via GitGitGadget
2023-05-09 21:04 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-05-09 19:18 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] pack-refs: teach pack-refs --include option John Cai via GitGitGadget
2023-05-09 21:25 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-05-10 19:52 ` John Cai
2023-05-11 18:10 ` [PATCH v3 0/4] pack-refs: allow users control over which refs to pack John Cai via GitGitGadget
2023-05-11 18:10 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] docs: clarify git-pack-refs --all will pack all refs John Cai via GitGitGadget
2023-05-11 23:53 ` Taylor Blau
2023-05-11 18:10 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] pack-refs: teach --exclude option to exclude refs from being packed John Cai via GitGitGadget
2023-05-11 19:34 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-05-12 0:00 ` Taylor Blau
2023-05-12 12:53 ` John Cai
2023-05-12 21:11 ` John Cai
2023-05-11 18:10 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] revision: modify ref_exclusions to handle inclusions John Cai via GitGitGadget
2023-05-11 19:54 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-05-12 14:56 ` John Cai
2023-05-11 18:10 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] pack-refs: teach pack-refs --include option John Cai via GitGitGadget
2023-05-11 20:06 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-05-12 14:48 ` John Cai [this message]
2023-05-12 19:03 ` John Cai
2023-05-12 21:34 ` [PATCH v4 0/3] pack-refs: allow users control over which refs to pack John Cai via GitGitGadget
2023-05-12 21:34 ` [PATCH v4 1/3] docs: clarify git-pack-refs --all will pack all refs John Cai via GitGitGadget
2023-05-12 21:34 ` [PATCH v4 2/3] pack-refs: teach --exclude option to exclude refs from being packed John Cai via GitGitGadget
2023-05-12 21:34 ` [PATCH v4 3/3] pack-refs: teach pack-refs --include option John Cai via GitGitGadget
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=80E985AF-40B2-46F4-8873-4FA4A18B881F@gmail.com \
--to=johncai86@gmail.com \
--cc=christian.couder@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitgitgadget@gmail.com \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).