On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 01:22:28PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 01:18:06PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 01:27:24AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 10:21:21AM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > > > > > > > Once we start passing either in, `match_pattern()` will have little to > > > > do with a particular `struct ref_filter *` instance. To clarify this, > > > > drop it from the argument list, and replace it with the only bit of the > > > > `ref_filter` that we care about (`filter->ignore_case`). > > > > > > Makes sense, but... > > > > > > > @@ -2134,9 +2134,10 @@ 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) > > > > > > ...wouldn't we then want to do the same for match_name_as_path()? > > > > Yes, definitely :-). I'm not sure how I missed this, since the patch > > message even says that `match_name_as_path()` gets the same treatment as > > the other function. > > > > But in any case, I obviously agree (and the diff below makes sense to > > me). Applied. > > Ah, this is missing one more spot (that we wouldn't complain about > during a non-DEVELOPER build). This needs to go on top, but I otherwise > agree: Heh, yes. I was applying them in order, and had to make the same fixup on top of the next patch. I think that was the only other fallout as I applied the rest, though. -Peff
