Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] submodule_needs_pushing() NEEDSWORK when we can not answer this question

From: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Date: Nov 15, 2016, 22:39 UTC
Message-ID: <CAGZ79kYyyjP7W7gWq6WomVSkhRtMbZZMKYQPFszko4_f9oprgg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1d87628994df89751afdcc7e180ebcdc29dde722.1479221071.git.hvoigt@hvoigt.net>

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 6:56 AM, Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@hvoigt.net> wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> Signed-off-by: Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@hvoigt.net>
> ---
>  submodule.c | 8 ++++++++
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/submodule.c b/submodule.c
> index e1196fd..29efee9 100644
> --- a/submodule.c
> +++ b/submodule.c
> @@ -531,6 +531,14 @@ static int submodule_has_commits(const char *path, struct sha1_array *commits)
>  static int submodule_needs_pushing(const char *path, struct sha1_array *commits)
>  {
>         if (!submodule_has_commits(path, commits))
> +               /* NEEDSWORK: The correct answer here is "We do not

style nit:
/*
 * Usually we prefer comments with both the first and last line of the
comment "empty".
 */
/* or just a one liner */

AFAICT these are the only two modes that we prefer in Git. For a discussion of all the other style, enjoy Linus' guidance. ;) http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1607.1/00627.html

> "We do not know" ...

... because there is no way to check for us as we don't have the submodule commits.

    " We do consider it safe as no one in their sane mind would
    have changed the submodule pointers without having the
    submodule around. If a user did however change the submodules
    without having the submodule commits around, this indicates an
    expert who knows what they were doing."

Show 8 quoted lines

>   We currently
> +                * proceed pushing here as if the submodules commits are
> +                * available on a remote. Since we can not check the
> +                * remote availability for this submodule we should
> +                * consider changing this behavior to: Stop here and
> +                * tell the user how to skip this check if wanted.
> +                */
>                 return 0;

Thanks for adding the NEEDSWORK, I just wrote the above lines to clarify my thought process, not as a suggestion for change.

Overall the series looks good to me; the nits are minor IMHO.

Thanks, Stefan