Re: [PATCH 5/5] pathspec: record labels

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: May 16, 2016, 18:43 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqd1ol3ku7.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGZ79kbHW+qzQjoVu9gRYC0FBqpkq5bPPLU3=BdEFKeGc=U6sA@mail.gmail.com>

Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:

Show 14 quoted lines

>> I am NOT suggesting to make this enhancement in the prototype to
>> allow us experiment with submodule selection use case, but this is
>> an obvious place to allow
>>
>>         :(label=A B):(label=C D)
>>
>> to mean ((A & B) | (C & D)) by making item->labels an array of set
>> of labels.
>
> This is what already works with the series. Or rather:
>
>     ":(label=A B)" ":(label=C D)"
>
> works as you would expect for (A&B) | (C&D).

That is "duplicationg path".  I was envisioning a single

	":(label=A B):(label=C D)tediously/long/path/because/java/"

a shorter and sweeter way to say your two pathspec variant, i.e.

	":(label=A B)tediously/long/path/because/java/" \
        ":(label=C D)tediously/long/path/because/java/"