On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:26 AM, Stefan Beller <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 2:41 AM, Duy Nguyen <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 3:34 AM, Stefan Beller <[email protected]> wrote: >>> @@ -139,7 +140,8 @@ static size_t common_prefix_len(const struct pathspec >>> *pathspec) >>> PATHSPEC_LITERAL | >>> PATHSPEC_GLOB | >>> PATHSPEC_ICASE | >>> - PATHSPEC_EXCLUDE); >>> + PATHSPEC_EXCLUDE | >>> + PATHSPEC_ATTR); >> >> Hmm.. common_prefix_len() has always been a bit relaxing and can cover >> more than needed. It's for early pruning. Exact pathspec matching >> _will_ be done later anyway. >> >> Is that obvious? > > Yes it is. > Not sure what your concern is, though.
None really. I was just thinking out loud and trying not to make assumptions, because I know this code quite well and I don't know how people see this code anymore :D So all is good then. -- Duy
