On 2020-12-07 at 00:02:16, Eric Sunshine wrote:

This commit message is too barebones. As a justification, "We'd
like..." is insufficient; it doesn't help the reader understand why
this change is desirable.

Further, the lack of explanation about the seemingly arbitrary "one or
infinite" condition confuses the issue. The first question which
popped into this reader's head was "why those two specific choices?".
What makes one missing path component special as opposed to any number
of missing components? (These questions are mostly rhetorical; I can
figure out reasonable answers, but the commit message ought to do a
better job of explaining.)

Sure, I can expand the commit message to be a little more descriptive.

The name of the function is somewhat confusing, especially if you take
the suggestion of dropping the `many_missing` argument. Perhaps a name
such as strbuf_realpath_forgiving() would be more understandable.

Sure, I agree that's a better name.  It shouldn't be surprising to
anyone on the list that I am absolutely terrible at naming things, so I
appreciate the suggestion.
-- 
brian m. carlson (he/him or they/them)
Houston, Texas, US