davi.reis@xxxxxxxxx writes: > --- a/builtin/ls-tree.c > +++ b/builtin/ls-tree.c > @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ static int show_recursive(const char *base, int baselen, const char *pathname) > speclen = strlen(spec); > if (speclen <= len) > continue; > - if (spec[len] != 0 && spec[len] != '/') > + if (spec[len] != '/') This change is not the one advertized for in the title. If you didn't mean it, then git send-email --annotate can be your friend, it gives you a last opportunity to check your patch before it is sent. If you did mean it, then it should be justified in the commit message. > --- a/t/t3100-ls-tree-restrict.sh > +++ b/t/t3100-ls-tree-restrict.sh > @@ -165,4 +165,13 @@ test_expect_success \ > EOF > test_output' > > +test_expect_success \ > + 'ls-tree with one path a prefix of the other' \ > + 'git ls-tree $tree path2/baz path2/bazbo >current && > + make_expected <<\EOF && > +040000 tree X path2/baz > +120000 blob X path2/bazbo > +EOF > + test_output' > + > test_done Adding the test can help people to understand what the first patch is fixing, hence, I'd suggest either squashing both patches, or putting the test patch first (with a test_expect_failure), and having the second turn the test_expect_failure into a test_expect_success (hence, it's obvious reading the patch that it fixes the test). -- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/ -- 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