Am 11.05.20 um 18:25 schrieb Junio C Hamano: > René Scharfe <l.s.r@xxxxxx> writes: >> + >> + /* >> + * There can be non-consecutive duplicates due to the implicitly >> + * add slash, e.g.: > > s/add slash/added slash/, or even "added slash at the end of the > name of a tree object". Thanks for spotting the typo. I think the short one suffices as the sentence below (and earlier comments) already cover it. >> + * >> + * foo >> + * foo.bar >> + * foo.bar.baz >> + * foo.bar/ >> + * foo/ >> + * >> + * Record non-directory candidates (like "foo" and "foo.bar" in >> + * the example) on a stack and check directory candidates (like >> + * foo/" and "foo.bar/") against that stack. >> + */ > Side note. this is nice but is subtle. I'd need to retrace > the thoughts on this part again later to convince myself > that we are not missing anything. Yes, it's tricky, and we do miss something, as I mentioned in the test coverage thread. I'll reply with patches. René
