From: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 00:09:06 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] submodule: use cheaper check for submodule pushes
Message-ID: <CAGZ79kZMVXR_S7z=uFohOYXAJrpj=hRFn=w--EWiEEvxF3KCkw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20170713000117.GJ93855@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:

> These footnotes don't answer the question that I really have: why did
> this use add_submodule_odb in the first place?

oh, I forgot to put that down: presumably add_submodule_odb was
used because it was available back then? Note the dates!

> E.g. did the ref iteration code require access to the object store
> previously and stop requiring it later?

No. See [1], it was overkill since the beginning of time.

>> -     if (add_submodule_odb(path))
>> +     int code;
>> +
>> +     if (!is_submodule_populated_gently(path, &code))
>
> Should this examine the code to distinguish between hard errors
> (e.g. "Error reading .git") and a missing repository?

add_submodule_odb does neither, so I think this is best kept without
additional checks.

Thanks!