From: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
To: Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: clarify git-rev-list(1) --filter behavior
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2025 15:49:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aUFxbDPucKr42fIJ@pks.im> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xnstt6myzzfyq65w73xuqg7cfso3bdw6tw33shrery4e4gi2zy@pfxq2pjmb2hm>
On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 08:36:56AM -0600, Justin Tobler wrote:
> On 25/12/16 09:12AM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 10:13:22AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/rev-list-options.adoc b/Documentation/rev-list-options.adoc
> > > > index d9665d82c8..453ec59057 100644
> > > > --- a/Documentation/rev-list-options.adoc
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/rev-list-options.adoc
> > > > @@ -983,7 +983,9 @@ to name units in KiB, MiB, or GiB. For example, `blob:limit=1k`
> > > > is the same as 'blob:limit=1024'.
> > > > +
> > > > The form `--filter=object:type=(tag|commit|tree|blob)` omits all objects
> > > > -which are not of the requested type.
> > > > +which are not of the requested type. Note that explicitly provided objects
> > > > +ignore filters and are always printed unless `--filter-provided-objects` is
> > > > +also specified.
> > >
> > > The above documents the status quo correctly, so let's queue, but it
> > > is unfortunate that we need an extra option to do this.
> >
> > True. I didn't feel comfortable to change the default to also filter
> > provided objects when I discovered that we don't, hence the new option.
> > It's not great though as it certainly is surprising behaviour, but I'm
> > not sure whether we can really change it without breaking existing
> > users. Oh, well...
>
> Out of curiousity, are there any known use-cases where a user _would_
> want the provided objects printed along with the filtered ones? From my
> naive perspective it almost doesn't even sound useful and appears to
> just be a sharp edge. This maybe not worthing worrying too much about
> though.
I don't really have an idea, but that's exactly the problem here.
Filters are for example used by partial clones, and I don't want to
break those because I'm not aware of some of the intricacies. Which
doesn't mean that there _are_ use cases where this is actually the
desired behaviour, but rather that there needs to be some research to
come to a conclusion here.
Patrick
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-12-16 14:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-12-15 20:05 [PATCH] docs: clarify git-rev-list(1) --filter behavior Justin Tobler
2025-12-16 1:13 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-12-16 8:12 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2025-12-16 14:36 ` Justin Tobler
2025-12-16 14:49 ` Patrick Steinhardt [this message]
2025-12-16 18:07 ` Junio C Hamano
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=aUFxbDPucKr42fIJ@pks.im \
--to=ps@pks.im \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=jltobler@gmail.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 NNTP newsgroup(s).