Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2014, #01; Tue, 3)
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Jun 4, 2014, 20:50 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqwqcwtn5u.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <538F7050.3040103@web.de>
Jens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@web.de> writes:
Show 14 quoted lines
> Am 04.06.2014 00:16, schrieb Junio C Hamano: >> * jl/status-added-submodule-is-never-ignored (2014-04-07) 2 commits >> - commit -m: commit staged submodules regardless of ignore config >> - status/commit: show staged submodules regardless of ignore config >> >> There also are a few patches Ronald Weiss and Jens are working on >> polishing around this topic, and a patch from Jens each for gitk >> and git-gui. >> >> Waiting for the dust to settle until picking them up all. > > To me it looks like the dust settled enough around that part of the > topic and I remember consensus about that change. But it would be > nice to have the gitk and git-gui patches in at the same time.
Yes, what I meant was that after the dust settled, it may turn out that these two may need to be adjusted. If these two commits can be used without any change as a base for any further development, that is good---shall I move it back to "Cooking" category?
Show 19 quoted lines
>> * jl/submodule-recursive-checkout (2013-12-26) 5 commits >> - Teach checkout to recursively checkout submodules >> - submodule: teach unpack_trees() to update submodules >> - submodule: teach unpack_trees() to repopulate submodules >> - submodule: teach unpack_trees() to remove submodule contents >> - submodule: prepare for recursive checkout of submodules >> >> An RFCv2 exists ($gmane/241455) with sizable review comments. >> Expecting a reroll. > > Will do, but only after I rerolled the submodule test harness > ($gmane/245048) soonish, as I intend to reuse the infrastructure > introduced there for tests. > >> * jh/submodule-tests (2014-04-17) 1 commit >> - t7410: 210 tests for various 'git submodule update' scenarios > > Will look deeper into that one in the next days, we really need more > test coverage in that area.
OK. Thanks.