Re: [GSoC][PATCH v7 06/10] dir-iterator: add flags parameter to dir_iterator_begin

[Matheus Tavares Bernardino <matheus.bernardino@usp.br>]

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 3:00 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Matheus Tavares <matheus.bernardino@usp.br> writes:
>
> This hunk, which claims to have 25 lines in the postimage ...
>
> > @@ -44,6 +45,25 @@
> >   * dir_iterator_advance() again.
> >   */
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Flags for dir_iterator_begin:
> > + *
> > + * - DIR_ITERATOR_PEDANTIC: override dir-iterator's default behavior
> > + *   in case of an error at dir_iterator_advance(), which is to keep
> > + *   looking for a next valid entry. With this flag, resources are freed
> > + *   and ITER_ERROR is returned immediately. In both cases, a meaningful
> > + *   warning is emitted. Note: ENOENT errors are always ignored so that
> > + *   the API users may remove files during iteration.
> > + *
> > + * - DIR_ITERATOR_FOLLOW_SYMLINKS: make dir-iterator follow symlinks.
> > + *   i.e., linked directories' contents will be iterated over and
> > + *   iter->base.st will contain information on the referred files,
> > + *   not the symlinks themselves, which is the default behavior.
> > + *   Recursive symlinks are skipped with a warning and broken symlinks
> > + *   are ignored.
> > + */
> > +#define DIR_ITERATOR_PEDANTIC (1 << 0)
> > +#define DIR_ITERATOR_FOLLOW_SYMLINKS (1 << 1)
> > +
> >  struct dir_iterator {
> >       /* The current path: */
> >       struct strbuf path;
> > @@ -58,29 +78,38 @@ struct dir_iterator {
>
> ... adds 20 lines, making the postimage 26 lines long.
>
> Did you hand edit your patch?  It is OK to do so, as long as you
> know what you are doing ;-).  Adjust the length of the postimage on
> the @@ ... @@ line to make it consistent with the patch text, and
> also make sure a tweak you do here won't make later patches not
> apply.

Oh, I'm sorry for that, I'll be more careful with hand editing next
time. Thanks for the advice. I think for this time it won't affect the
later patches as it was a minor addition at one comment, but should I
perhaps re-send it?