On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12/08, Duy Nguyen wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On 12/07, Duy Nguyen wrote: >> >> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:51 AM, Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > Convert 'create_simplify()' to use the pathspec struct interface from >> >> > using the '_raw' entry in the pathspec. >> >> >> >> It would be even better to kill this create_simplify() and let >> >> simplify_away() handle struct pathspec directly. >> >> >> >> There is a bug in this code, that might have been found if we >> >> simpify_away() handled pathspec directly: the memcmp() in >> >> simplify_away() will not play well with :(icase) magic. My bad. If >> >> :(icase) is used, the easiest/safe way is simplify nothing. Later on >> >> maybe we can teach simplify_away() to do strncasecmp instead. We could >> >> ignore exclude patterns there too (although not excluding is not a >> >> bug). >> > >> > So are you implying that the simplify struct needs to be killed? That >> > way the pathspec struct itself is being passed around instead? >> >> Yes. simplify struct was a thing when pathspec was an array of char *. >> At this point I think it can retire (when we have time to retire it) > > Alright, then for now I can leave this change as is and have a follow up > series that kills the simplify struct. Do let me know if you decide to drop it, so I can put it back in my backlog. -- Duy