On 2020-12-07 at 00:02:16, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> This commit message is too barebones. As a justification, "We'd
> like..." is insufficient; it doesn't help the reader understand why
> this change is desirable.
> 
> Further, the lack of explanation about the seemingly arbitrary "one or
> infinite" condition confuses the issue. The first question which
> popped into this reader's head was "why those two specific choices?".
> What makes one missing path component special as opposed to any number
> of missing components? (These questions are mostly rhetorical; I can
> figure out reasonable answers, but the commit message ought to do a
> better job of explaining.)

Sure, I can expand the commit message to be a little more descriptive.

> The name of the function is somewhat confusing, especially if you take
> the suggestion of dropping the `many_missing` argument. Perhaps a name
> such as strbuf_realpath_forgiving() would be more understandable.

Sure, I agree that's a better name.  It shouldn't be surprising to
anyone on the list that I am absolutely terrible at naming things, so I
appreciate the suggestion.
-- 
brian m. carlson (he/him or they/them)
Houston, Texas, US