Re: [PATCH v4 02/16] refs.c: use is_dir_sep() in resolve_gitlink_ref()
- From
Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
- Date
- Sep 6, 2017, 11:08 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CACsJy8A0x-PJsO+uhv8=mdfeKLEBPfT3sq3_Fi2_HffeexDeAw@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAGZ79kbvKZXGy80RCU3zkdm0S3M-tGB=LAJYiY=o+YwUB9RNHA@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 5:36 AM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> wrote: >> The "submodule" argument in this function is a path, which can have >> either '/' or '\\' as a separator. Use is_dir_sep() to support both. >> >> Noticed-by: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> >> Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> > > Immediate questions that come to mind: > * Could this go in as an independent bug fix?
It probably could. But it may depend on other submodule changes in this series.
> -> If so do we have any test that fails or stops failing on Windows?
It was spotted during the review [1] so I guess no test fails on Windows (not that I would know because I can't run tests on Windows)
> -> If not, do we need one?
Since I don't use Windows, I don't particularly care. And I can't add one anyway because I can't run it.
[1] https://public-inbox.org/git/%3Ca74cf309-fb16-2f45-8189-d1d0c655dea4@kdbg.org%3E/
Show 5 quoted lines
> * Assuming this is not an independent bug fix: > Why do we need this patch in this series here? > (I thought this is about worktrees, not submodules. > So does this fix a potential bug that will be exposed > later in this series, but was harmless up to now?)
The series could probably be split in two. The first part is about using the new refs_* API in revision.c. This helps clean up refs API a bit, all *_submodule() functions will be one. Not strictly needed to be part of this, it's just a continuation of my previous series that introduces *_refs. Since submodule code is touched, this is found.
The second part is actually fixing the prune bug.
Should I split the series in two? I think I separated two parts in the past (maybe I misremember) at least in the description...
-- Duy