On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote:
> Stefan Beller <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> I started from scratch as I think there were some sharp edges in the design.
>> My thinking shifted from "submodule groups" towards "actually it's just an
>> enhanced pathspec, called submodulespec".
>
> Except for minor things I mentioned separately, overall, this seems
> quite cleanly done.
I disagree (now).
I started documenting the <submodulespec> as an extension of
the pathspecs. While I thought the logical OR was the right way to go,
I think it is wrong now. So there is stuff in tests like:
git submodule--helper matches-submodulespec sub0 ./.
./:(exclude)*0 *label-sub0
which should test if the first argument (sub0) matches the submodulespec
which follows. And it matches sub0 by matching the label, although
we told it to ignore anything ending in 0
So I wonder if we rather want to extend the pathspec magic to
include properties of blobs (i.e. submodules):
git <command> . :(sub-label:label-sub0) :(exclude)*0
would look much more powerful too me. Properties of blobs
may also be interesting for otherwise. Imagine looking for huge files
(in a bare repo, so you have to use Git and not your shell tools):
git ls-files . :(file-size:>1024k)
>
> Looks very promising.
>
Thanks for the encouragement!
Thanks,
Stefan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
