Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > It looks like your new --allow-uplevel goes to verify_path(). So this > isn't just about "..", but it will also protect against applying a patch > inside ".git". Which seems like a good thing to me, but I wonder if the > option name is a little misleading.
True; not just misleading but is incorrect, I would say. Suggestions? > I agree they are orthogonal in concept, though I doubt the symlink tests > here would pass without the previous one... It won't; "do not apply across symlinks" is unconditional, and the new codepath introduced by this patch, which is conditional to the user option, shouldn't have to worry about them. -- 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
