Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy  <> writes:

> This flag is equivalent to builtin/ls-files.c:strip_trailing_slashes()
> and is intended to replace that function when ls-files is converted to
> use parse_pathspec.
> Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <>
> ---
>  pathspec.c | 9 +++++++++
>  pathspec.h | 1 +
>  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
> diff --git a/pathspec.c b/pathspec.c
> index b2446c3..2da8bc9 100644
> --- a/pathspec.c
> +++ b/pathspec.c
> @@ -204,6 +204,15 @@ static unsigned prefix_pathspec(struct pathspec_item 
> *item,
>       *raw = item->match = match;
>       item->original = elt;
>       item->len = strlen(item->match);
> +

I see that having cheap and expensive variant at these steps is a
way to achieve a bug-for-bug compatible rewrite of the existing
code, but in the longer term should we lose one of them?  After all,
a path that points at the working tree of another repository that is
beyond a symlink cannot be added to us as a submodule, so CHEAP can
be used only when we know that any intermediate component on the
path is not a symlink pointing elsewhere, and the user in the
codepath of ls-files may know it.

To put it differently, shouldn't CHEAP and EXPENSIVE be accompanied
by in-code comment and updates to Documentation/technical/api-*.txt
to help users of the API to decide which one to use?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to