Re: [PATCH v8 3/4] submodule: fix sync handling of some relative superproject origin URLs
- From
Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jun 6, 2012, 11:09 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAH3AnrpFg=mUcrRMUhbFvShnXwpvJa5eE-VsqcJm0MNMz8C6zA@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7v7gvlnzlz.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 12 quoted lines
> Jens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@web.de> writes: > >> Am 03.06.2012 11:46, schrieb Jon Seymour: >>> @@ -959,19 +985,32 @@ cmd_sync() >>> while read mode sha1 stage sm_path >>> do >>> name=$(module_name "$sm_path") >>> - url=$(git config -f .gitmodules --get submodule."$name".url) >>> + # path from superproject origin repo to submodule origin repo >> >> This comment is misleading as it only describes part of the truth, in a lot >> of cases it'll just be an absolute URL of the submodule.
Done. v9 3/4 also updates the header comments for resolve_relative_url to remove a similar misleading implication.
Show 15 quoted lines
>> >>> + module_url=$(git config -f .gitmodules --get submodule."$name".url) >> >> And I see no real value of renaming "url" to "module_url" here (but maybe >> that is just me). > > I tend to agree; there is no other kind of URL involved, and I do > not see a clear motivation behind this renaming. Renaming url to > module_url would not help much if it is to differenciate URLs to the > repositories of submodule and superproject, so that can't be it. > > In any case, I suspect that you would be involved in maintaining > this code in the long haul, so even if it were "just you", your > opinion counts. >
This is reverted in v9.
Show 5 quoted lines
>> So I'd vote for dropping that comment and the "url" to "module_url" change. >> But apart from that and the issues Junio mentioned in his response this >> series is looking good to me. > > Thanks for looking this over.
Yes, thank you all.
jon.