Re: [PATCH v3 16/19] pathspec.c: move reusable code from builtin/add.c

Adam Spiers [off-list ref] writes:

Protect this against multiple inclusion with "#ifndef PATHSPEC_H".

On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 8:32 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

Adam Spiers [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

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

but I'd prefer not to re-roll 16--19 when just 16 and 17 are sufficient.

On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Adam Spiers [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 8:32 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Adam Spiers [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

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.