Nguyán ThÃi Ngác Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> match_pathspec_depth() is similar to match_pathspec() except that it
> can take depth limit.
>
> In long term, match_pathspec() should be removed in favor of this
> function.
Hmm, this strongly suggests that match_pathspec() should take "const
struct pathspec *" which already contains the necessary information and
more, including the depth limit, no?
> Signed-off-by: Nguyán ThÃi Ngác Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> dir.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> dir.h | 3 +++
> 2 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/dir.c b/dir.c
> index bb5076c..e12dbdd 100644
> --- a/dir.c
> +++ b/dir.c
> @@ -169,6 +169,51 @@ int match_pathspec(const char **pathspec, const char *name, int namelen,
> return retval;
> }
>
> +int match_pathspec_depth(const char **pathspec, int max_depth,
> + const char *name, int namelen,
> + int prefix, char *seen)
> +{
> + int i, retval = 0;
> +
> + if (!pathspec) {
> + if (max_depth == -1)
> + return MATCHED_RECURSIVELY;
> +
> + if (within_depth(name, namelen, 0, max_depth))
> + return MATCHED_EXACTLY;
Why the difference between _RECURSIVELY and _EXACTLY here? If you have a
five-level deep project and give max-depth of 1000, shouldn't you get the
same result as you run the same command with unlimited depth?
--
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