>>> In this example, the common prefix would be "a/b/" and the common
>>> suffix that does not overlap with the prefix part would be "/c", so
>>> I am imagining that "a/b/{ => b}/c" would be the desired output?
>>
>>
>> Yes, at least that's what I expected.
>
>
> Surely it would be "a/b/{b => }/c", that is, we have reduced the number of
> b's by one. Or am I misunderstanding something?
> (I'm guessing it was an all too obvious typo that was misread)
Indeed, read to fast and reproduced in suggested new message.
a/b/b/c => a/b/c is equivalent to a/b/{b => }/c
Thank you for proof-reading.
--
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
