On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclo...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> @@ -232,11 +228,18 @@ static int path_exists(struct tree *tree, const char
>> *path)
>> static void parse_pathspec_arg(const char **pathspec,
>> struct archiver_args *ar_args)
>> {
>> - ar_args->pathspec = pathspec = get_pathspec("", pathspec);
>> + /*
>> + * must be consistent with parse_pathspec in path_exists()
>> + * Also if pathspec patterns are dependent, we're in big
>> + * trouble as we test each one separately
>> + */
>> + parse_pathspec(&ar_args->pathspec, 0,
>> + PATHSPEC_PREFER_FULL,
>> + "", pathspec);
>> if (pathspec) {
>> while (*pathspec) {
>> if (!path_exists(ar_args->tree, *pathspec))
>> - die("path not found: %s", *pathspec);
>> + die(_("pathspec '%s' did not match any
>> files"), *pathspec);
>> pathspec++;
>> }
>
> You do not use ar_args->pathspec even though you used parse_pathspec()
> to grok it? What's the point of this change?
parse_pathspec() here is needed because write_archive_entries needs it
later. tree_entry_interesting() has not supported "seen" feature like
match_pathspec_depth() to detect unused pathspecs. For simplicity,
just check each pathspec individually. We can revisit this when we add
"seen" feature to tree_entry_interesting.
--
Duy
--
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
