Re: [PATCH 8/8] git submodule update: Have a dedicated helper for cloning
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Oct 21, 2015, 21:23 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqvb9zudai.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAGZ79kaa6b49rDW204ydtY0cf4NugSKOm+sBHKBYYoEsVugVfw@mail.gmail.com>
Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:
Show 21 quoted lines
> I'd like to counter your argument with quoting code from update_clone
> method:
>
> run_processes_parallel(1, get_next_task, start_failure,
> task_finished, &pp);
>
> if (pp.print_unmatched) {
> printf("#unmatched\n");
> return 1;
> }
>
> for_each_string_list_item(item, &pp.projectlines) {
> utf8_fprintf(stdout, "%s", item->string);
> }
>
> So we do already all the cloning first, and then once we did all of that
> we just put out all accumulated lines of text. (It was harder to come up with
> a sufficient file name than just storing it in memory. I don't think
> memory is an
> issue here, only a few bytes per submodule. So even 1000 submodules would
> consume maybe 100kB)That does not sound like a counter-argument; two bad design choices compensating each other's shortcomings, perhaps ;-)
> Having a file though would allow us to continue after human > interaction fixed one problem.
Yes. That does sound like a better design.
This obviously depends on the impact to the other part of what cmd_update() does, but your earlier idea to investigate the feasibility and usefulness of updating "clone --recurse-submodules" does sound like a good thing to do, too. That's an excellent point.