Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> -static int match_pattern(const struct ref_filter *filter, const char *refname)
> +static int match_pattern(const struct ref_filter *filter,
> + const char **patterns,
> + const char *refname)
> {
> - const char **patterns = filter->name_patterns;
> unsigned flags = 0;
>
> if (filter->ignore_case)
> @@ -2132,9 +2133,10 @@ static int match_pattern(const struct ref_filter *filter, const char *refname)
> * matches a pattern "refs/heads/" but not "refs/heads/m") or a
> * wildcard (e.g. the same ref matches "refs/heads/m*", too).
> */
> -static int match_name_as_path(const struct ref_filter *filter, const char *refname)
> +static int match_name_as_path(const struct ref_filter *filter,
> + const char **pattern,
> + const char *refname)
> {
> - const char **pattern = filter->name_patterns;
> int namelen = strlen(refname);
> unsigned flags = WM_PATHNAME;
>
These hint that we'd eventually lose .name_patterns member from the
structure so that we can pass pattern array that is not necessarily
tied to any instance of a filter?
> @@ -2163,8 +2165,8 @@ static int filter_pattern_match(struct ref_filter *filter, const char *refname)
> if (!*filter->name_patterns)
> return 1; /* No pattern always matches */
> if (filter->match_as_path)
> - return match_name_as_path(filter, refname);
> - return match_pattern(filter, refname);
> + return match_name_as_path(filter, filter->name_patterns, refname);
> + return match_pattern(filter, filter->name_patterns, refname);
And we are not there yet, so we hoist the use of .name_patterns
member one level up to the only caller?
Without seeing how it evolves, we can tell this does not make
anything break, but we cannot tell how this helps anything (yet).
Let's read on.
