Re: [PATCH 15/19] pathspec: add match_pathspec_depth()

2010/12/14 Junio C Hamano [off-list ref]:

Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

match_pathspec_depth() is similar to match_pathspec() except that it
can take depth limit.

In long term, match_pathspec() should be removed in favor of this
function.

Hmm, this strongly suggests that match_pathspec() should take "const
struct pathspec *" which already contains the necessary information and
more, including the depth limit, no?

Good idea. Thanks!

quoted

+int match_pathspec_depth(const char **pathspec, int max_depth,
+                      const char *name, int namelen,
+                      int prefix, char *seen)
+{
+     int i, retval = 0;
+
+     if (!pathspec) {
+             if (max_depth == -1)
+                     return MATCHED_RECURSIVELY;
+
+             if (within_depth(name, namelen, 0, max_depth))
+                     return MATCHED_EXACTLY;

Why the difference between _RECURSIVELY and _EXACTLY here?  If you have a
five-level deep project and give max-depth of 1000, shouldn't you get the
same result as you run the same command with unlimited depth?

But if max-depth is 5 and the project is 1000-level deep, it should
return _EXACTLY, not _RECURSIVELY, right?
-- 
Duy