Re: [PATCH 2/2] submodule: fix handling of supermodules with relative origin URLs
- From
Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com>
- Date
- May 19, 2012, 22:51 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAH3AnrrqiXqdHHGZPyOPJ3Zend5JrQX0rKV+pz_mjs3SDjv9DA@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <4FB7ECCF.9020403@web.de>
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Jens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@web.de> wrote:
> Am 19.05.2012 06:40, schrieb Jon Seymour: > > Just a small nit: I'd prefer to replace the 4 occurrences of the term > "supermodule" with "superproject".
Sure. I can't argue with precedent, of course, but I guess I was favouring the consistency in the suffixes used with sub and super.
Show 12 quoted lines
>
>
> BTW, what happened to the following comment in you other email?
>
>>> + remoteurl="${up_path%/}/${remoteurl%/*}"
>>
>> Meant up_path%/ to be up_path%/*
>
> The '*' is not there (but the test suite runs fine no matter if I add
> a '*' there or not). Thinking about it not adding the '*' should be
> correct, as you just want to chop off a trailing '/' from $up_path
> here, right?Yes %/* was actually the wrong thing to do - my original intent was to remove repeated trailing occurrences of /, but, of course, %/* doesn't do that, nor should it be necessary (assuming the sm_path was normalized during add).
> > So no objection on the code changes from my side.
I noticed one relative case that is not handled properly yet, but there is a workaround. If the superproject's origin URL is of the form: foo/bar (a case I actually have myself for reasons I can explain if you want me to), then the correct rule doesn't get matched by .*/*). The workaround is for the user to change foo/bar style origin URLs to ./foo/bar.
Let me know if I should fix this case now too.
jon.