On 2020-12-07 at 00:02:16, Eric Sunshine wrote: > This commit message is too barebones. As a justification, "We'd > like..." is insufficient; it doesn't help the reader understand why > this change is desirable. > > Further, the lack of explanation about the seemingly arbitrary "one or > infinite" condition confuses the issue. The first question which > popped into this reader's head was "why those two specific choices?". > What makes one missing path component special as opposed to any number > of missing components? (These questions are mostly rhetorical; I can > figure out reasonable answers, but the commit message ought to do a > better job of explaining.) Sure, I can expand the commit message to be a little more descriptive. > The name of the function is somewhat confusing, especially if you take > the suggestion of dropping the `many_missing` argument. Perhaps a name > such as strbuf_realpath_forgiving() would be more understandable. Sure, I agree that's a better name. It shouldn't be surprising to anyone on the list that I am absolutely terrible at naming things, so I appreciate the suggestion. -- brian m. carlson (he/him or they/them) Houston, Texas, US
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
