On 12/07, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:51 AM, Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > @@ -426,8 +423,7 @@ void parse_pathspec(struct pathspec *pathspec,
> > nr_exclude++;
> > if (item[i].magic & magic_mask)
> > unsupported_magic(entry,
> > - item[i].magic & magic_mask,
> > - short_magic);
> > + item[i].magic & magic_mask);
>
> Same here. Maybe put both arguments in the same line. It looks a bit
> better. (sorry for two mails on the same patch, I'm reading the final
> output first before going through individual patches that breaks this
> function down)
All good. Sometimes its easier to parse comments if they are in
multiple small emails. I don't mind getting lots of mail :)
>
> >
> > if ((flags & PATHSPEC_SYMLINK_LEADING_PATH) &&
> > has_symlink_leading_path(item[i].match, item[i].len)) {
> --
> Duy
--
Brandon Williams