Web lists-archives.com

Re: [PATCH v2] list-objects-filter: disable 'sparse:path' filters




On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:42 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> What is curious is that this does not touch Documentation/ hierarchy
> at all---is that a sign that nobody makes any serious use of the
> --filter=... thing and we can freely drop "features" around it when
> we see it necessary (like in this case)?

I just forgot about the Documentation.

> Or do we need something like this on top (or squashed in)?  I can
> live with or without "Note that..." myself.

Yeah, I will squash something like what you suggest soon.

>  Documentation/rev-list-options.txt | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt
> index ddbc1de43f..73aafea8d6 100644
> --- a/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/rev-list-options.txt
> @@ -725,9 +725,6 @@ specification contained in the blob (or blob-expression) '<blob-ish>'
>  to omit blobs that would not be not required for a sparse checkout on
>  the requested refs.
>  +
> -The form '--filter=sparse:path=<path>' similarly uses a sparse-checkout
> -specification contained in <path>.
> -+
>  The form '--filter=tree:<depth>' omits all blobs and trees whose depth
>  from the root tree is >= <depth> (minimum depth if an object is located
>  at multiple depths in the commits traversed). <depth>=0 will not include
> @@ -737,6 +734,9 @@ tree and blobs which are referenced directly by a commit reachable from
>  <commit> or an explicitly-given object. <depth>=2 is like <depth>=1
>  while also including trees and blobs one more level removed from an
>  explicitly-given commit or tree.
> ++
> +Note that the form '--filter=sparse:path=<path>' that wants to read from
> +an arbitrary path on the filesystem is not supported, for security reasons.

I'd rather say:

"Note that the form '--filter=sparse:path=<path>' that wants to read from
an arbitrary path on the filesystem has been dropped for security reasons."

to be more consistent with the error message (that Matthew suggested
in a comment following my initial RFC patch).

Thanks,
Christian.