Re: [PATCH] ls-files: add pathspec matching for submodules

I thought as much. Thanks for the quick explanation :) On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Brandon Williams writes: > >> side question if the answer is short: Any reason as to why all of the >> pathspec matching code lives inside of

Re: [PATCH] ls-files: add pathspec matching for submodules

Brandon Williams writes: > side question if the answer is short: Any reason as to why all of the > pathspec matching code lives inside of dir.c and not pathspec.c? Hysterical Raisins. A pathspec used to be just a "const char **" in simpler times, which was no more elaborate

Re: [PATCH] ls-files: add pathspec matching for submodules

side question if the answer is short: Any reason as to why all of the pathspec matching code lives inside of dir.c and not pathspec.c? On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Brandon Williams writes: > >> Yes in that case it wouldn't have

Re: [PATCH] ls-files: add pathspec matching for submodules

Brandon Williams writes: > Yes in that case it wouldn't have passed ps_strncmp()...but we should have > never > made it there in the first place due to a piece of logic in > match_pathspec_item: Ah, OK. Thanks for clarifying.

Re: [PATCH] ls-files: add pathspec matching for submodules

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Brandon Williams writes: > >>> Again, what do we have in "name" and "item" at this point? If we >>> have a submodule at "sub/" and we are checking a pathspec element >>> "sub/dir1/*", what is the

Re: [PATCH] ls-files: add pathspec matching for submodules

Brandon Williams writes: > static void show_ce_entry(const char *tag, const struct cache_entry *ce) > { > + struct strbuf name = STRBUF_INIT; > int len = max_prefix_len; > + if (submodule_prefix) > + strbuf_addstr(, submodule_prefix); > +

Re: [PATCH] ls-files: add pathspec matching for submodules

Brandon Williams writes: >> Again, what do we have in "name" and "item" at this point? If we >> have a submodule at "sub/" and we are checking a pathspec element >> "sub/dir1/*", what is the non-wildcard part of the pathspec and what >> is the "string"? Aren't they

Re: [PATCH] ls-files: add pathspec matching for submodules

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I think you were clear enough. > > Don't read everything other people say in their reviews as pointing > out issues. Often trying to rephrase what they read in the code in > their own words is a good way to make sure

Re: [PATCH] ls-files: add pathspec matching for submodules

Brandon Williams writes: >> OK, so as discussed previously with Heiko and Stefan, the idea is to >> >> - pass the original pathspec as-is, >> >> - when --submodule-prefix is given, a path discovered in a >>submodule repository is first prefixed with that string before >>

Re: [PATCH] ls-files: add pathspec matching for submodules

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 8:46 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > As the previous one that used a wrong (sorry) argument is not even > in 'next' yet, let's pretend that it never happened. It is OK to > still keep it and this patch as two separate steps, i.e. a topic > with two

Re: [PATCH] ls-files: add pathspec matching for submodules

Brandon Williams writes: > ... > [--full-name] [--recurse-submodules] > - [--output-path-prefix=] > + [--submodule-prefix=] > [--abbrev] [--] [...] > > ---output-path-prefix=:: > +--submodule-prefix=:: > Prepend the