Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > When reviewing a change in Gerrit, which also updates a submodule, > a common review practice is to download and cherry-pick the patch locally > to test it. However when testing it locally, the 'git submodule update' > may fail fetching the correct submodule sha1 as the corresponding commit > in the submodule is not yet part of the project history, but also just a > proposed change. > > To ease this, try fetching by sha1 first and when that fails (in case of > servers which do not allow fetching by sha1), fall back to the default > behavior we already have. > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > > I think it's best to apply this on origin/master, there is no collision > with sb/submodule-parallel-update. > > Also I do not see a good way to test this both in correctness as well > as performance degeneration. If the first git fetch fails, the second > fetch is executed, so it should behave as before this patch w.r.t. correctness. > > Regarding performance, the first fetch should fail quite fast iff the fetch > fails and then continue with the normal fetch. In case the first fetch works > fine getting the exact sha1, the fetch should be faster than a default fetch > as potentially less data needs to be fetched. "The fetch should be faster" may not be making a good trade-off overall--people may have depended on the branches configured to be fetched to be fetched after this codepath is exercised, but now if the commit bound to the superproject tree happens to be complete, even though it is not anchored by any remote tracking ref (hence the next GC may clobber it), the fetch of other branches will not happen. My knee-jerk reaction is that the order of fallback is probably the other way around. That is, try "git fetch" as before, check again if the commit bound to the superproject tree is now complete, and fallback to fetch that commit with an extra "git fetch". Jens, what do you think? > git-submodule.sh | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/git-submodule.sh b/git-submodule.sh > index 9bc5c5f..ee0b985 100755 > --- a/git-submodule.sh > +++ b/git-submodule.sh > @@ -746,8 +746,9 @@ Maybe you want to use 'update --init'?")" > # Run fetch only if $sha1 isn't present or it > # is not reachable from a ref. > (clear_local_git_env; cd "$sm_path" && > + remote_name=$(get_default_remote) > ( (rev=$(git rev-list -n 1 $sha1 --not --all 2>/dev/null) && > - test -z "$rev") || git-fetch)) || > + test -z "$rev") || git-fetch $remote_name $rev Regardless of the "fallback order" issue, I do not think $rev is a correct thing to fetch here. The superproject binds $sha1 to its tree, and you would be checking that out, so shouldn't you be fetching that commit? -- 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