Re: [PATCH 15/19] pathspec: add match_pathspec_depth()

[Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>]

2010/12/14 Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>:
> Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> match_pathspec_depth() is similar to match_pathspec() except that it
>> can take depth limit.
>>
>> In long term, match_pathspec() should be removed in favor of this
>> function.
>
> Hmm, this strongly suggests that match_pathspec() should take "const
> struct pathspec *" which already contains the necessary information and
> more, including the depth limit, no?

Good idea. Thanks!

>> +int match_pathspec_depth(const char **pathspec, int max_depth,
>> +                      const char *name, int namelen,
>> +                      int prefix, char *seen)
>> +{
>> +     int i, retval = 0;
>> +
>> +     if (!pathspec) {
>> +             if (max_depth == -1)
>> +                     return MATCHED_RECURSIVELY;
>> +
>> +             if (within_depth(name, namelen, 0, max_depth))
>> +                     return MATCHED_EXACTLY;
>
> Why the difference between _RECURSIVELY and _EXACTLY here?  If you have a
> five-level deep project and give max-depth of 1000, shouldn't you get the
> same result as you run the same command with unlimited depth?

But if max-depth is 5 and the project is 1000-level deep, it should
return _EXACTLY, not _RECURSIVELY, right?
-- 
Duy