Brandon Williams <[email protected]> writes: > It's confusing to have two different 'strip submodule slash' flags which > do subtly different things. Both > PATHSPEC_STRIP_SUBMODULE_SLASH_EXPENSIVE and > PATHSPEC_STRIP_SUBMODULE_SLASH_CHEAP will accomplish the same task of > striping a slash from a pathspec which matches a submodule entry in the > index. The only difference is that > PATHSPEC_STRIP_SUBMODULE_SLASH_EXPENSIVE will perform additional checks > and die if a pathspec has a leading path component which corresponds to > a submodule. This additional functionality should be split out into its > own flag. > > To this end, rename the PATHSPEC_STRIP_SUBMODULE_SLASH_EXPENSIVE flag to > PATHSPEC_SUBMODULE_LEADING_PATH and change its behavior to only die if a > path descends into a submodule. In addition add the > PATHSPEC_STRIP_SUBMODULE_SLASH_CHEAP flag to callers which relied on the > old slash stripping functionality.
"PATHSPEC_SUBMODULE_LEADING_PATH" feels like an unfinished sentence to me. Do I understand your description correctly if I say it is about "checking" the leading path to see if it overlaps with a submodule path? IOW, I am wondering if the name should have the word CHECK somewhere in it.
