Re: [PATCH v7 0/9] submodule: improve robustness of path handling

From: Jens Lehmann <jens.lehmann@web.de>
Date: May 29, 2012, 19:21 UTC
Message-ID: <4FC521AE.1010707@web.de>
In-Reply-To: <CAH3AnroT1vs-s==ykNyogq6gbVncY0pt5U1=fMp+b6B0jwG19Q@mail.gmail.com>

Am 29.05.2012 00:01, schrieb Jon Seymour:

Show 6 quoted lines

> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Jens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@web.de> wrote:
>> So I'd vote for just fixing the relative submodule path issues and to
>> not care about the possible issues with URLs. Opinions?
> 
> I'll write a minimal patch to solve my relative path problem without
> fixing the invalid/"greedy" submodule url or url normalization issues.

I'd really appreciate that.

> Do you have any comments about whether the failures documented in 2/9
> and 4/9 are worth noting, at least, as weaknesses?

Sure, they document known problems. Me thinks they all should be squashed into a single patch and submitted separately. The following three tests from 2/9 are redundant and can be dropped (they are already handled by the '../../subrepo' case):

    '../../../subrepo fails with URL - ssh://hostname/repo' "
    '../../../../subrepo fails with with URL - ssh://hostname/repo' "
    '../../../../../subrepo fails with URL - ssh://hostname/repo' "

Show 11 quoted lines

>> (And patches 6-8 contain changes to test cases other than just changing
>> test_expect_failure to test_expect_success which makes reviewing this
>> series unnecessarily hard)
> 
> Agree absolutely about patch 8 - I will re-roll with separate tests to
> document the test setup issue I fixed in 8.
> 
> The only other changes to tests in 6 and 7 were the removal of
> comments about the actual bad behaviour. Would your preference be that
> I removed these #actual comments completely or that I moved
> documentation of the actual behaviour to the header of the test?

I'd prefer just to see the failure => success changes, so the comments look superfluous to me and should be dropped from the failure case.