On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: >> Or I could hold off nd/parse-pathspec if this series has a better >> chance of graduation first. Decision? > > I am greedy and want to have both ;-)
Apparently I have no problems with your being greedy. > There is no textual conflict between the two topics at the moment, > but because the ultimate goal of your series is to remove all uses > of the pathspec.raw[] field outside the implementation of pathspec > matching, it might help to rename the field to _private_raw (or > remove it), and either make get_pathspec() private or disappear, to > ensure that the compiler will help us catching semantic conflicts > with new users of it at a late stage of your series. There are still some uses for get_pathspec() and new call sites won't cause big problems because they would need init_pathspec() to convert get_pathspec() results to struct pathspec. I will rename raw[] though. -- Duy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
