On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Adam Spiers <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> This will be reused by a new git check-ignore command.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Adam Spiers <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> pathspec.c | 20 ++++++++++++++------
>> pathspec.h | 1 +
>> 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/pathspec.c b/pathspec.c
>> index 8aea0d2..6724121 100644
>> --- a/pathspec.c
>> +++ b/pathspec.c
>> @@ -77,9 +77,20 @@ void treat_gitlinks(const char **pathspec)
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> + * Dies if the given path refers to a file inside a symlinked
>> + * directory.
>> + */
>> +void validate_path(const char *path, const char *prefix)
>
> The name needs to be a lot more specific.
>
> There may be 47 different kinds of "validations" various callers may
> want to do on a path, but this function only caters to one kind of
> callers that want to make sure that the path refers to something
> that we would directly add to our index.
>
>> +{
>> + if (has_symlink_leading_path(path, strlen(path))) {
>> + int len = prefix ? strlen(prefix) : 0;
>> + die(_("'%s' is beyond a symbolic link"), path + len);
>> + }
>> +}
Good point. Which do you prefer of these suggested names?
- die_if_path_beyond_symlink()
- validate_path_not_beyond_symlink()
- die_if_symlink_leading_path()
- validate_no_symlink_leading_path()
- validate_path_addable_to_index()
Or something else?
--
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