On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Adam Spiers <g...@adamspiers.org> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 8:32 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: >> Adam Spiers <g...@adamspiers.org> writes: >> >>> diff --git a/pathspec.h b/pathspec.h >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 0000000..8bb670b >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/pathspec.h >>> @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ >>> +extern char *find_used_pathspec(const char **pathspec); >>> +extern void fill_pathspec_matches(const char **pathspec, char *seen, int >>> specs); >>> +extern const char *treat_gitlink(const char *path); >>> +extern void treat_gitlinks(const char **pathspec); >>> +extern const char **validate_pathspec(const char **argv, const char >>> *prefix); >> >> Protect this against multiple inclusion with "#ifndef PATHSPEC_H". > > Yep good idea, how should I submit this? It will cause a trivially > resolvable conflict with the next patch in the series (17/19): > > pathspec.c: extract new validate_path() for reuse
I was wrong about that - it didn't cause a conflict, although it does marginally change the context at the end of the pathspec.h hunk in the above patch. > but I'd prefer not to re-roll 16--19 when just 16 and 17 are sufficient. Based on your other feedback, all of 16--19 require changes, and as things stand, conveniently nothing earlier in the series does, so I'll re-roll those four once the outstanding issues are all resolved. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
