Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> writes: > Stefan Beller <[email protected]> writes: > >> When giving more than just pathspec arguments (e.g. submodule labels), >> we need a way to check all non-matching arguments for the pathspec parsing >> if these are the submodule labels or typos. >> >> This patch prepares for that use case by splitting up `report_path_error` >> into a new checking function `unmatched_pathspec_items` and a >> reporting callback. > > I seem to recall that there is a longstanding plan to move the > "seen[]" array that is separate and outside from the pathspec > structure into the pathspec structure. Wouldn't that be a more > sensible approach to solve the same thing?
Even with such a refactoring, the need to split the "preprocessing" (mainly "dedup") still remains if you want to silence this codepath, so I think this is OK from pathspec/dir.c point of view. But I do not agree with the first paragraph at all. You'd be using separate syntax like '*label', ':name', etc. for the purpose of enumerating submodules, so instead of blindly passing argv[] to pathspec code, I expected you to do a preprocessing of argv[] upfront, sifting them into three bins (labels, names and paths), and giving only the last ones to the pathspec machinery. And if you did that, report_path_error() would never have to worry about "ah, this thing does not exist in the working tree or in the index but that is natural because it is a submodule label" at all, no? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
