Re: [PATCH 3/8] pathspec: change PATHSPEC_STRIP_SUBMODULE_SLASH_EXPENSIVE flag

> Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com> writes:
> 
> > It's confusing to have two different 'strip submodule slash' flags which
> > do subtly different things.  Both
> > PATHSPEC_STRIP_SUBMODULE_SLASH_EXPENSIVE and
> > PATHSPEC_STRIP_SUBMODULE_SLASH_CHEAP will accomplish the same task of
> > striping a slash from a pathspec which matches a submodule entry in the
> > index.  The only difference is that
> > PATHSPEC_STRIP_SUBMODULE_SLASH_EXPENSIVE will perform additional checks
> > and die if a pathspec has a leading path component which corresponds to
> > a submodule.  This additional functionality should be split out into its
> > own flag.
> >
> > To this end, rename the PATHSPEC_STRIP_SUBMODULE_SLASH_EXPENSIVE flag to
> > PATHSPEC_SUBMODULE_LEADING_PATH and change its behavior to only die if a
> > path descends into a submodule.  In addition add the
> > PATHSPEC_STRIP_SUBMODULE_SLASH_CHEAP flag to callers which relied on the
> > old slash stripping functionality.
> 
> "PATHSPEC_SUBMODULE_LEADING_PATH" feels like an unfinished sentence
> to me.  Do I understand your description correctly if I say it is
> about "checking" the leading path to see if it overlaps with a
> submodule path?  IOW, I am wondering if the name should have the
> word CHECK somewhere in it.
>