On Fri, 8 Jan 2010, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Yes, and the previous patch wasn't adding what is ignored to the array, so > here is a re-roll to fix that in addition to the fix to "should the loop > start from checking an empty path?" issue you noticed. Ack. Looks ok to me, and I think it's a lot more obvious. > But I am starting to wonder if we might be better off restructuring > read_directory_recursive(). Currently it assumes that the path it was > given _must_ be of interest (i.e. not ignored) and runs excluded() on > subdirectories it finds to make that same decision before recursing into > them or skipping them. It might make more sense if it first checked if > the path given by the caller should be ignored and act accordingly. Hmm. I can't make myself care one way or the other, I have to admit. I assume you mean basically taking the path and using the first component of it _instead_ of doing a readdir() - and getting rid of the simplification up front? I agree that that should work. Would it be simpler and cleaner? Perhaps. I'd have to see both patches to be able to tell. I do admit that while I acked your patch, it sure ain't _pretty_ to do that special odd "has_leading_ignored_dir()" thing. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html