On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 06:21:11PM +0700, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
> - for (i = 0; i < specs; i++) {
> + for (i = 0; i < pathspec->nr; i++) {
> if (!seen[i])
> - die(_("pathspec '%s' did not match any files"), pathspec[i]);
> + die(_("pathspec '%s' did not match any files"), pathspec->raw[i]);
> }
This needs the following fixup on top. I don't want to send another
reroll just a couple hours after I flooded git@vger. I did not plan to
work on the series this soon but somehow another problem got me back
here.
-- 8< --
diff --git a/builtin/add.c b/builtin/add.c
index 1235eb9..e1bcdb9 100644
--- a/builtin/add.c
+++ b/builtin/add.c
@@ -159,7 +159,8 @@ static void refresh(int verbose, const struct pathspec *pathspec)
pathspec, seen, _("Unstaged changes after refreshing the index:"));
for (i = 0; i < pathspec->nr; i++) {
if (!seen[i])
- die(_("pathspec '%s' did not match any files"), pathspec->raw[i]);
+ die(_("pathspec '%s' did not match any files"),
+ pathspec->items[i].match);
}
free(seen);
}
-- 8< --
and the baaad reason: pathspec->items[] are sorted because of 86e4ca6
(tree_entry_interesting(): fix depth limit with overlapping pathspecs
- 2010-12-15). But raw[] are _not_. So raw[i] does not correspond to
item[i].
Now seen[] array returned from match_pathspec() has the order
corresponding to raw[]. On the other hand match_pathspec_depth()
returns seen[] corresponds to items[]. This patch converts
match_pathspec() to match_pathspec_depth() so we need to use the
correct pathspec array.
I'll put these explanation in the next reroll. And don't worry about
this subtle difference. My next email kills match_pathspec() for good.
--
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