Re: [PATCH 0/4] Submodule Groups

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> I think having both is bad as it may contradict each other?
> What is supposed to happen here:
>
>      [submodule "frotz"]
>          group = default
>
>      [submoduleGroup "default"]
>          member = !:frotz

What is supposed to happen is that you will write code to diagnose
this as an error, and give helpful error message to the user.

> So groups of groups, we discovered recursion today. :)
> Having this discussion makes me realize, the groups handling logic
> will be more complex than I anticipated for the first RFC patch series.

That is why I think we do not have to have a very complex group
logic from day one.

> The two basic questions the logic has to answer is:
>  * Give me all the submodules that fit these specifiers (i.e. the
>     --init-submodules collection from clone)
>  * Given submodule X, does it fit the specifier ( a new uninitialized
>     submodule during a later update)

Yes.
--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]