On 05/10, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Brandon Williams <bmw...@google.com> writes: > > > It's confusing to have two different 'strip submodule slash' flags which > > do subtly different things. Both > > PATHSPEC_STRIP_SUBMODULE_SLASH_EXPENSIVE and > > PATHSPEC_STRIP_SUBMODULE_SLASH_CHEAP will accomplish the same task of > > striping a slash from a pathspec which matches a submodule entry in the > > index. The only difference is that > > PATHSPEC_STRIP_SUBMODULE_SLASH_EXPENSIVE will perform additional checks > > and die if a pathspec has a leading path component which corresponds to > > a submodule. This additional functionality should be split out into its > > own flag. > > > > To this end, rename the PATHSPEC_STRIP_SUBMODULE_SLASH_EXPENSIVE flag to > > PATHSPEC_SUBMODULE_LEADING_PATH and change its behavior to only die if a > > path descends into a submodule. In addition add the > > PATHSPEC_STRIP_SUBMODULE_SLASH_CHEAP flag to callers which relied on the > > old slash stripping functionality. > > "PATHSPEC_SUBMODULE_LEADING_PATH" feels like an unfinished sentence > to me. Do I understand your description correctly if I say it is > about "checking" the leading path to see if it overlaps with a > submodule path? IOW, I am wondering if the name should have the > word CHECK somewhere in it. >
You're probably right, the name has something left to be desired. I chose it simply because it conforms to another flag "PATHSPEC_SYMLINK_LEADING_PATH" which dies if there is a symlink in the leading path. And you are correct, it checks if the leading path overlaps with a submodule path. If it strictly matches a submodule path that's alright though. The point of this flag is to disallow paths which descend into submodules. One such use case is to prevent a user from trying to 'git add' a file from a submodule. -- Brandon Williams
