On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Eric Sunshine writes:
>
>> Given the above. How should I proceed? Do you still feel that it is
>> advisable to keep an index_name_exists() around for compatibility
>> reasons in case any new callers are introduced? Regardless of that
>> ans
Eric Sunshine writes:
> Given the above. How should I proceed? Do you still feel that it is
> advisable to keep an index_name_exists() around for compatibility
> reasons in case any new callers are introduced? Regardless of that
> answer, do you want index_name_exists() renamed to
> index_file_ex
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Eric Sunshine
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> Eric Sunshine writes:
>>>
Since these two modes of operations are disjoint and have no code in
common (one s
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Eric Sunshine writes:
>
>> Depending upon the absence or presence of a trailing '/' on the incoming
>> pathname, index_name_exists() checks either if a file is present in the
>> index or if a directory is represented within the index. Each
Eric Sunshine writes:
> Depending upon the absence or presence of a trailing '/' on the incoming
> pathname, index_name_exists() checks either if a file is present in the
> index or if a directory is represented within the index. Each caller
> explicitly chooses the mode of operation by adding o
Depending upon the absence or presence of a trailing '/' on the incoming
pathname, index_name_exists() checks either if a file is present in the
index or if a directory is represented within the index. Each caller
explicitly chooses the mode of operation by adding or removing a
trailing '/' before
6 matches
Mail list logo
