Jeff Hostetler <[email protected]> writes:
> diff --git a/list-objects.c b/list-objects.c
> index f3ca6aa..c9ca81c 100644
> --- a/list-objects.c
> +++ b/list-objects.c
> @@ -24,11 +25,28 @@ static void process_blob(struct rev_info *revs,
> die("bad blob object");
> if (obj->flags & (UNINTERESTING | SEEN))
> return;
> - obj->flags |= SEEN;
>
> pathlen = path->len;
> strbuf_addstr(path, name);
> - show(obj, path->buf, cb_data);
> + if (!filter_blob) {
> + /*
> + * Normal processing is to imediately dedup blobs
> + * during commit traversal, regardless of how many
> + * times it appears in a single or multiple commits,
> + * so we always set SEEN.
> + */
> + obj->flags |= SEEN;
> + show(obj, path->buf, cb_data);
> + } else {
> + /*
> + * Use the filter-proc to decide whether to show
> + * the blob. We only set SEEN if requested. For
> + * example, this could be used to omit a specific
> + * blob until it appears with a ".git*" entryname.
> + */
> + if (filter_blob(obj, path->buf, &path->buf[pathlen], cb_data))
> + obj->flags |= SEEN;
> + }
This somehow looks a bit surprising organization and division of
responsibility. I would have expected
if (!filter_blob ||
filter_blob(obj, path->buf, &path->buf[pathlen], cb_data) {
obj->flags |= SEEN;
show(obj, path->buf, cb_data);
}
i.e. making the filter function responsible for only making a
decision to include or exclude, not giving it a chance to decide to
"show" anything different.
> @@ -67,6 +85,7 @@ static void process_gitlink(struct rev_info *revs,
> static void process_tree(struct rev_info *revs,
> struct tree *tree,
> show_object_fn show,
> + filter_blob_fn filter_blob,
> struct strbuf *base,
> const char *name,
> void *cb_data)
> @@ -111,7 +130,7 @@ static void process_tree(struct rev_info *revs,
> if (S_ISDIR(entry.mode))
> process_tree(revs,
> lookup_tree(entry.oid->hash),
> - show, base, entry.path,
> + show, filter_blob, base, entry.path,
> cb_data);
> else if (S_ISGITLINK(entry.mode))
> process_gitlink(revs, entry.oid->hash,
I wonder if we'll need filter_tree_fn in the future in this
codepath. When somebody wants to do a "narrow fetch/clone", would
the approach taken by this series, i.e. decide not to show certain
objects during the "rev-list --objects" traversal, a good precedent
to follow? Would this approach be a good foundation to build on
such a future?
Thanks.
