From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 05:52:49 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] pathspec: change PATHSPEC_STRIP_SUBMODULE_SLASH_EXPENSIVE flag
Message-ID: <xmqqefvxxnpq.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20170509191805.176266-4-bmwill@google.com>

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.