Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/3] tree.c: add support for traversal of submodules

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jan 12, 2009, 03:15 UTC
Message-ID: <7vr639kyf0.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <1231717555-10559-2-git-send-email-hjemli@gmail.com>

Lars Hjemli <hjemli@gmail.com> writes:

Show 20 quoted lines

> If the commit referenced by a gitlink is available in the (possibly
> alternate) object database, read_tree_recursive() is now able to descend
> into the tree of the linked commit if the flag 'traverse_gitlinks' is
> turned on.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lars Hjemli <hjemli@gmail.com>
> ---
>  tree.c |   20 +++++++++++++++++---
>  tree.h |    1 +
>  2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tree.c b/tree.c
> index 03e782a..1468e10 100644
> --- a/tree.c
> +++ b/tree.c
> @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
>  #include "tree-walk.h"
>  
>  const char *tree_type = "tree";
> +int traverse_gitlinks = 0;

I think we tend to put these global settings that will affect everybody in environment.c. You do not have to initialize variable to zero; BSS will take care of it.

When the user explicitly asks you to traverse into submodules and the necessary commit is not available in a submodule, the code goes on without complaining. I am not saying it is bad, but I wonder if we would want to distinguish these three cases:

 (1) the submodule is initialized and the necessary commit is there.

 (2) the submodule is initialized, but the necessary commit is missing.

 (3) the submodule is not even initialized (aka "the user is not
     interested in it"); there is only an empty directory.

I think it is perfectly fine not to say anything for (3) but I am unsure about the second case.