Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes: > Adam Spiers <g...@adamspiers.org> writes: > >> Adam Spiers (14): >> Update directory listing API doc to match code >> Improve documentation and comments regarding directory traversal API >> Rename cryptic 'which' variable to more consistent name >> Rename path_excluded() to is_path_excluded() >> Rename excluded_from_list() to is_excluded_from_list() >> Rename excluded() to is_excluded() >> Refactor is_excluded_from_list() >> Refactor is_excluded() >> Refactor is_path_excluded() >> For each exclude pattern, store information about where it came from >> Refactor treat_gitlinks() >> Extract some useful pathspec handling code from builtin/add.c into a >> library >> Provide free_directory() for reclaiming dir_struct memory >> Add git-check-ignore sub-command > > Please retitle these to have a short "prefix: " that names a > specific area the series intends to touch. I retitled your other > series to share "test :" as their common prefix.
Just to clarify, I think most of them can say "dir.c: ". I saw quite a few decl-after-statement in new code. Please fix them. As to the "who owns x->src and when is it freed" question, it may make sense to give el a "filename" field (command line and other special cases would get whatever value you deem appropriate, like NULL or "<command line>"), have x->src point at that field when you queue many x's to the el in add_exc_from_file_to_list(). Then when you pop an element in the exclude_stack, you can free el->filename to plug a potential leak. Also I do not see why you need to have the strdup() in the caller of add_excludes_from_file_to_list(). If you need to keep it stable because you are copying it away in exclude or excludde_list, wouldn't it make more sense to do that at the beginning of the callee, i.e. add_excludes_from_file_to_list() function? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html