Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > This flag is equivalent to builtin/ls-files.c:strip_trailing_slashes() > and is intended to replace that function when ls-files is converted to > use parse_pathspec. > > Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > pathspec.c | 9 +++++++++ > pathspec.h | 1 + > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/pathspec.c b/pathspec.c > index b2446c3..2da8bc9 100644 > --- a/pathspec.c > +++ b/pathspec.c > @@ -204,6 +204,15 @@ static unsigned prefix_pathspec(struct pathspec_item *item, > *raw = item->match = match; > item->original = elt; > item->len = strlen(item->match); > + > + if ((flags & PATHSPEC_STRIP_SUBMODULE_SLASH_CHEAP) && I see that having cheap and expensive variant at these steps is a way to achieve a bug-for-bug compatible rewrite of the existing code, but in the longer term should we lose one of them? After all, a path that points at the working tree of another repository that is beyond a symlink cannot be added to us as a submodule, so CHEAP can be used only when we know that any intermediate component on the path is not a symlink pointing elsewhere, and the user in the codepath of ls-files may know it. To put it differently, shouldn't CHEAP and EXPENSIVE be accompanied by in-code comment and updates to Documentation/technical/api-*.txt to help users of the API to decide which one to use? -- 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