Re: What's cooking in git.git (May 2013, #09; Wed, 29)

> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 09:23:40PM +0200, Jens Lehmann wrote:
> > Am 30.05.2013 01:58, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> > > * jk/submodule-subdirectory-ok (2013-04-24) 3 commits
> > >   (merged to 'next' on 2013-04-24 at 6306b29)
> > >  + submodule: fix quoting in relative_path()
> > >   (merged to 'next' on 2013-04-22 at f211e25)
> > >  + submodule: drop the top-level requirement
> > >  + rev-parse: add --prefix option
> > > 
> > >  Allow various subcommands of "git submodule" to be run not from the
> > >  top of the working tree of the superproject.
> > 
> > The summary and status commands are looking good in this version
> > (they are now showing the submodule directory paths relative to
> > the current directory). Apart from that my other remarks from
> > gmane $221575 still seem to apply. And this series has only tests
> > for status, summary and add (and that just with an absolute URL),
> > I'd rather like to see a test for each submodule command (and a
> > relative add to) to document the desired behavior.
> 
> To summarize what I think are the outstanding issues from your email:
> 
> * Should '$sm_path' be relative in "submodule foreach"?
> * "submodule add" with a relative path
> * "submodule init" initializes all submodules
> * Tests
> 
> The current version does make '$sm_path' relative in "submodule
> foreach", although it's hard to spot because we have to leave doing so
> until right before the "eval".
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean about "submodule add" - the new version
> treats the "path" argument as relative (providing it is not an absolute
> path).  The "repository" argument is not changed by running from a
> subdirectory but I think that's correct since it is documented as being
> relative to the superproject's origin repository.
> 
> "submodule init" is behaving in the same way as "deinit" - if you say
> "submodule init ." then it will only initialize submodules below the
> current directory.  The difference is that "deinit" dies if it is not
> given any arguments whereas "init" will initialize everything from the
> top level down.  I'm not sure whether to change this; given the
> direction "git add -u" is heading in for 2.0 I think the current
> behaviour is the most consistent with the rest of Git.
> 
> > But I'm not sure if it's better to have another iteration of this
> > series or to address the open issues a follow-up series. Having
> > status, summary and add - at least with absolute URLs - lose the
> > toplevel requirement is already a huge improvement IMO. Opinions?
> 
> I think the only thing outstanding is tests.  I'm happy to add those as
> a follow-up or in a re-roll.