I will squash the patches and try again from scratch. Thanks Matthieu. On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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/ > -- []s Davi de Castro Reis -- 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