Jens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@xxxxxx> writes:
> Am 28.01.2013 19:51, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
>> Lars Hjemli <hjemli@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>>> Come to think of it, is there a reason why "for-each-repo" should
>>>> not be an extention to "submodule foreach"? We can view this as
>>>> visiting repositories that _could_ be registered as a submodule, in
>>>> addition to iterating over the registered submodules, no?
>>>
>>> Yes, but I see some possible problems with that approach:
>>> -'git for-each-repo' does not need to be started from within a git worktree
>>
>> True, but "git submodule foreach --untracked" can be told that it is
>> OK not (yet) to be in any superproject, no?
>
> Hmm, I'm not sure how that would work as it looks for gitlinks
> in the index which point to work tree paths.
I was imagining that "foreach --untracked" could go something like this:
* If you are inside an existing git repository, read its index to
learn the gitlinks in the directory and its subdirectories.
* Start from the current directory and recursively apply the
procedure in this step:
* Scan the directory and iterate over the ones that has ".git" in
it:
* If it is a gitlinked one, show it, but do not descend into it
unless --recursive is given (e.g. you start from /home/jens,
find /home/jens/proj/ directory that has /home/jens/proj/.git
in it. /home/jens/.git/index knows that it is a submodule of
the top-level superproject. "proj" is handled, and it is up
to the --recursive option if its submodules are handled).
* If it is _not_ a gitlinked one, show it and descend into it
(e.g. /home/jens/ is not a repository or /home/jens/proj is
not a tracked submodule) to apply this procedure recursively.
Of course, without --untracked, we have no need to iterate over the
readdir() return values; instead we just scan the index of the
top-level superproject.
>>> -'git for-each-repo' and 'git submodule foreach' have different
>>> semantics for --dirty and --clean
>
> I'm confused, what semantics of --dirty and --clean does current
> 'git submodule foreach' have? I can't find any sign of it in the
> current code ... did I miss something while skimming through this
> thread? Or are you talking about status and diff here?
I think Lars is hinting that "submodule foreach" could restrict its
operation to a similar --dirty/--clean/--both option he has. Of
course, the command given to foreach can decide to become no-op by
inspecting the submodule itself, so in that sense, --dirty/--clean
can be done without, but I think it would make sense to have it in
"submodule foreach" even without the "--untracked" option.
> But I think the current for-each-repo
> proposal doesn't allow to traverse repos which contain untracked
> content (and it would be nice if the user could somehow combine
> that with the current --dirty flag to have both in one go).
Perhaps. I personally felt it was really strange that submodule
diff and status consider that it is a sin to have untracked and
unignored cruft in the submodule working tree, though.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html