From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,T_DKIM_INVALID shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 742B12013A for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 23:38:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755472AbdBOXiQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:38:16 -0500 Received: from mail-pg0-f67.google.com ([74.125.83.67]:34316 "EHLO mail-pg0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753306AbdBOXhp (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:37:45 -0500 Received: by mail-pg0-f67.google.com with SMTP id v184so147036pgv.1 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 15:37:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=GU7W5CClVB84uNCVZEwYtNwnmOm9wK0P69QVE603pic=; b=EQpkMsRJKl3dMi1LPywIpc1wHDui/yBEqikHS87tcmTyTxTmc/PsWR6VECMzbTKs7j JgnJNkiijFX6rkUN8YBqAOGm1D6kF8DcSs0FFeBjT2Gx12ZxPTIrthYmTOiGnIHopxRQ ZB1yJCtGZjWOBrO+Y3KdvVAjWZJAC0fanfiAAnegAnistFLajfiA99l2amf6ebVp4+Lu BCVC64MwaaBgQFAfBb64Gfx1E8lxxf+90nM8FFVZXVFe3c6ucslyw5RERle0CxnRMIpB otyhtDRRitennbuznzAxgxXBzvf6ZC++6p4093l4pl3QXOw6gZN96PHkSnv/dOD10Bgb zToA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=GU7W5CClVB84uNCVZEwYtNwnmOm9wK0P69QVE603pic=; b=Y3NhZ95ESu+CSPp61pQrCdsO0rj0/OGk6/gEAJwxqmcUD6Bcp5EUbH2XWHETeujGWw vFZydR0YyOcKdghUh6A9m/d6gDDAiySojPfmatr9GAhx8JEWSOhtea/zxDRmBk9Zwyw0 KhkBH/qzkav8fiXAIQ2+P1Fw8xaWkNvqbyN2rw+HWqoQBYYRkYyfN0TB4iNexgLZHXWj ovzdLAv2AWJep/h4efM8ZgxLfXI7An0jy5muOCHVQLjhUjlWoP17wBNVOu2FqvOOdbu0 t1Vrry3B/lyau6j2ZvaIHFdOhmu0NM+dZVXRBSWnImXQxDfa6lau6A0Br/zDjCaqJ/Ld Abjg== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39nYhsNHyMabP8KaMCatJ5aUh6+EkQtUUA/g0f37jypfcOJOUhC6hAQYz7jZTktDew== X-Received: by 10.99.248.17 with SMTP id n17mr41546381pgh.17.1487201859576; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 15:37:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([2620:0:1000:8622:3551:31c7:1fe1:8b9b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y184sm9433963pfg.86.2017.02.15.15.37.38 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 15 Feb 2017 15:37:38 -0800 (PST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Stefan Beller Cc: Jonathan Tan , Lars Schneider , "git\@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [BUG] submodule config does not apply to upper case submodules? References: <20170215111704.78320-1-larsxschneider@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 15:37:37 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Beller's message of "Wed, 15 Feb 2017 15:28:34 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Stefan Beller writes: > Yes; though I'd place it in strbuf.{c,h} as it is operating > on the internals of the strbuf. (Do we make any promises outside of > strbuf about the internals? I mean we use .buf all the time, so maybe > I am overly cautious here) I'd rather have it not use struct strbuf as an interface. It only needs to pass "char *" and its promise that it touches the string in-place without changing the length need to be documented as a comment before the function. >> config.c | 16 +++++++++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/config.c b/config.c >> index c6b874a7bf..98bf8fee32 100644 >> --- a/config.c >> +++ b/config.c >> @@ -201,6 +201,20 @@ void git_config_push_parameter(const char *text) >> strbuf_release(&env); >> } >> >> +static void canonicalize_config_variable_name(struct strbuf *var) >> +{ >> + char *first_dot = strchr(var->buf, '.'); >> + char *last_dot = strrchr(var->buf, '.'); > > If first_dot != NULL, then last_dot !+ NULL as well. > (either both are NULL or none of them), > so we can loose one condition below. I do not think it is worth it, though. >> + char *cp; >> + >> + if (first_dot) >> + for (cp = var->buf; *cp && cp < first_dot; cp++) >> + *cp = tolower(*cp); >> + if (last_dot) >> + for (cp = last_dot; *cp; cp++) >> + *cp = tolower(*cp); if (first_dot) { scan up to first dot if (last_dot) scan from last dot to the end } would be uglier.