Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> + for (; pp->count < pp->list.nr; pp->count++) {
> + const struct submodule *sub = NULL;
> + const struct cache_entry *ce = pp->list.entries[pp->count];
> + struct strbuf displaypath_sb = STRBUF_INIT;
> + struct strbuf sb = STRBUF_INIT;
> + const char *displaypath = NULL;
> + char *url = NULL;
> + int needs_cloning = 0;
> +
> + if (ce_stage(ce)) {
> + if (pp->recursive_prefix)
> + strbuf_addf(err,
> + "Skipping unmerged submodule %s/%s\n",
> + pp->recursive_prefix, ce->name);
The funny indentation of the string is a workaround for overly deep
nesting, but is the overly deep nesting telling us that perhaps one
iteration of this loop can be an invocation of a helper function, I
wonder?
> + else
> + strbuf_addf(err,
> + "Skipping unmerged submodule %s\n",
> + ce->name);
> + goto cleanup_and_continue;
> + }
> +
> + sub = submodule_from_path(null_sha1, ce->name);
> +
> + if (pp->recursive_prefix)
> + displaypath = relative_path(pp->recursive_prefix,
> + ce->name, &displaypath_sb);
> + else
> + displaypath = ce->name;
> +
> + if ((pp->update && !strcmp(pp->update, "none")) ||
> + (!pp->update && sub->update == SM_UPDATE_NONE)) {
This looks a bit strange. I wonder pp->update should also become
enum for the same reason why sub->update has become enum. That way,
we need to be worried about parsing these tokens in one place where
a textual string "none" is translated to SM_UPDATE_NONE. If we
started allowing "None" in the sub->update parse_config() in
submodule-config.c, we would want that new parsing rule propagated
to pp->update, right?
> + strbuf_addf(err, "Skipping submodule '%s'\n",
> + displaypath);
> + goto cleanup_and_continue;
> + }
--
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