Re: [PATCH 2/2] Added test from David Glasser.

> davi.reis@gmail.com writes:
>
>> --- a/builtin/ls-tree.c
>> +++ b/builtin/ls-tree.c
>> @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ static int show_recursive(const char *base, int baselen, const char *pathname)
>>               speclen = strlen(spec);
>>               if (speclen <= len)
>>                       continue;
>> -             if (spec[len] != 0 && spec[len] != '/')
>> +             if (spec[len] != '/')
>
> This change is not the one advertized for in the title. If you didn't
> mean it, then
>
>  git send-email --annotate
>
> can be your friend, it gives you a last opportunity to check your
> patch before it is sent.
>
> If you did mean it, then it should be justified in the commit message.
>
>> --- a/t/t3100-ls-tree-restrict.sh
>> +++ b/t/t3100-ls-tree-restrict.sh
>> @@ -165,4 +165,13 @@ test_expect_success \
>>  EOF
>>       test_output'
>>
>> +test_expect_success \
>> +    'ls-tree with one path a prefix of the other' \
>> +    'git ls-tree $tree path2/baz path2/bazbo >current &&
>> +     make_expected <<\EOF &&
>> +040000 tree X  path2/baz
>> +120000 blob X  path2/bazbo
>> +EOF
>> +     test_output'
>> +
>>  test_done
>
> Adding the test can help people to understand what the first patch is
> fixing, hence, I'd suggest either squashing both patches, or putting
> the test patch first (with a test_expect_failure), and having the
> second turn the test_expect_failure into a test_expect_success (hence,
> it's obvious reading the patch that it fixes the test).
>
> --
> Matthieu Moy
> http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
>