On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> 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 ;-)

Apparently I have no problems with your being greedy.

> 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.

There are still some uses for get_pathspec() and new call sites won't
cause big problems because they would need init_pathspec() to convert
get_pathspec() results to struct pathspec. I will rename raw[] though.
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