Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@xxxxxxx> writes:
> @@ -937,13 +945,23 @@ static const struct refspec *check_pattern_match(const struct refspec *rs,
> const struct ref *src)
> {
> int i;
> + int matching_refs = -1;
> for (i = 0; i < rs_nr; i++) {
> + if (rs[i].matching &&
> + (matching_refs == -1 || rs[i].force)) {
> + matching_refs = i;
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> if (rs[i].pattern &&
> !prefixcmp(src->name, rs[i].src) &&
> src->name[strlen(rs[i].src)] == '/')
> return rs + i;
> }
> - return NULL;
> + if (matching_refs != -1)
> + return rs + matching_refs;
> + else
> + return NULL;
> }
It is probably better to document that you would force if you have both
"+:" and ":" for the same remote, even though I am not sure if allowing
that (instead of diagnosing it as an error) is the right thing to do.
Is it an error to have both ":" and "some:other" refspecs for the same
remote? If so who makes the check?
Otherwise this patch seems to be very cleanly done. Especially I like how
the updated match_refs() looks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
