Duy Nguyen <pclo...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Martin von Zweigbergk <martinv...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> We use the path arguments in two places in reset.c: in
>>> interactive_reset() and read_from_tree(). Both of these call
>>> get_pathspec(), so we pass the (prefix, arv) pair to both
>>> functions. Move the call to get_pathspec() out of these methods, for
>>> two reasons: 1) One argument is simpler than two. 2) It lets us use
>>> the (arguably clearer) "if (pathspec)" in place of "if (i < argc)".
>>> ---
>>> If I understand correctly, this should be rebased on top of
>>> nd/parse-pathspec. Please let me know.
>> Yeah, this will conflict with the get_pathspec-to-parse_pathspec
>> conversion Duy has been working on.
> Or I could hold off nd/parse-pathspec if this series has a better
> chance of graduation first. Decision?

I am greedy and want to have both ;-)

Before deciding that, I'd appreciate a second set of eyes giving
Martin's series an independent review, to see if it is going in the
right direction.  I think I didn't spot anything questionable in it
myself, but second opinion always helps.

There is no textual conflict between the two topics at the moment,
but because the ultimate goal of your series is to remove all uses
of the pathspec.raw[] field outside the implementation of pathspec
matching, it might help to rename the field to _private_raw (or
remove it), and either make get_pathspec() private or disappear, to
ensure that the compiler will help us catching semantic conflicts
with new users of it at a late stage of your series.
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