Re: [PATCH 0/8] en/object-list-with-pathspec v4

[Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>]

Hi,

2010/9/8 Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>:
> OK it's good enough now. I no longer use struct exclude_list.
> Its name does not really match the semantics.
>
> The last two patches implement tree exclusion and are not meant
> for submission to en/object-list-with-pathspec. I wanted to see
> if the new struct was extensible. And I need tree exclusion anyway
> in my narrow clone.

Perhaps the last two patches should be split off and submitted
separately?  I really like your work here to add negated pathspecs;
they'll be really helpful for me.  However, as you say, they are
really moving into a different topic.

I've reviewed and tested patches 1-4 of this series, and they look
good to me.  (Am I supposed to add a Reviewed-by and Tested-by or an
Acked-by for these?  Still not sure what the rules are there).
Patches 5-6 are already part of pu (modulo the return of tree_entry(),
which is nice) and already have my signoff, so I don't need to comment
on those further.

I've got some comments for patches 7 & 8, which I think may need a
little more work; I'll add them to the individual emails.


Elijah