On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Adam Spiers <g...@adamspiers.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 8:32 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Adam Spiers <g...@adamspiers.org> writes:
>>> diff --git a/pathspec.h b/pathspec.h
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000..8bb670b
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/pathspec.h
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
>>> +extern char *find_used_pathspec(const char **pathspec);
>>> +extern void fill_pathspec_matches(const char **pathspec, char *seen, int 
>>> specs);
>>> +extern const char *treat_gitlink(const char *path);
>>> +extern void treat_gitlinks(const char **pathspec);
>>> +extern const char **validate_pathspec(const char **argv, const char 
>>> *prefix);
>> Protect this against multiple inclusion with "#ifndef PATHSPEC_H".
> Yep good idea, how should I submit this?  It will cause a trivially
> resolvable conflict with the next patch in the series (17/19):
>   pathspec.c: extract new validate_path() for reuse

I was wrong about that - it didn't cause a conflict, although it does
marginally change the context at the end of the pathspec.h hunk in the
above patch.

> but I'd prefer not to re-roll 16--19 when just 16 and 17 are sufficient.

Based on your other feedback, all of 16--19 require changes, and as
things stand, conveniently nothing earlier in the series does, so I'll
re-roll those four once the outstanding issues are all resolved.
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

Reply via email to