Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> I do not think that buys us much. You have already shown how to
>> implement "filter first and then pathspec match" if a caller
>> wants to (which turned out to be a regression in this case, but
>> that is besides the point).
>
> And by including this filtering into the pathspec machine we can pass
> a flag DONT_BREAK_ON_NO_FILTER_RESULTS_WHEN_HAVING_OTHER_MATCHES
> (name for illustration purpose only ;) which is how I understand this
> regression?
But you do not even need that if you fix the regression with
something like this, no? Do we need to add complexity to pathspec
machinery only to make it easier to misuse it and then add another
DONT_BREAK_... band-aid to fix a bug that can come from such a
misuse?
builtin/submodule--helper.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/builtin/submodule--helper.c b/builtin/submodule--helper.c
index ed764c9..740b57a 100644
--- a/builtin/submodule--helper.c
+++ b/builtin/submodule--helper.c
@@ -37,10 +37,11 @@ static int module_list_compute(int argc, const char **argv,
for (i = 0; i < active_nr; i++) {
const struct cache_entry *ce = active_cache[i];
- if (!S_ISGITLINK(ce->ce_mode) ||
- !match_pathspec(pathspec, ce->name, ce_namelen(ce),
+ if (!match_pathspec(pathspec, ce->name, ce_namelen(ce),
0, ps_matched, 1))
continue;
+ if (!S_ISGITLINK(ce->ce_mode))
+ continue;
ALLOC_GROW(list->entries, list->nr + 1, list->alloc);
list->entries[list->nr++] = ce;
--
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