Re: [PATCH 0/2] Demonstrate and partially work around a gitattributes problem

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: May 17, 2017, 02:05 UTC
Message-ID: <20170517020535.qqmw2yncfomd3hfb@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqshk4z2hv.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:38:36AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> > -			add_pending_object(revs, a_obj, this);
> > -			add_pending_object(revs, b_obj, next);
> > +			add_pending_object_with_path(revs, a_obj, this,
> > +						     oc.mode,
> > +						     oc.path[0] ? oc.path : NULL);
> > +			add_pending_object_with_path(revs, b_obj, next,
> > +						     oc2.mode,
> > +						     oc2.path[0] ? oc2.path : NULL);
> 
> The fix is surprisingly simple, and I think it definitely goes in
> the right direction.
> 
> Somehow, it bothers me to be forced to view (a_obj, this, from_sha1,
> oc) vs (b_obj, next, sha1, oc2) as a sensibly corresponding pair of
> tuples, but that is not something your introduction of "oc2"
> started, so I won't complain ;-).

Yes, in my polishing I switched this out at least "oc_a" and "oc_b" so we could be sure they match correctly. I think this whole "dotdot" conditional could be pulled out to its own function, and probably consistently use "a" and "b" for the endpoints. I'll see what refactoring I can do to make it more readable.

-Peff