On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 11:28 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> So this change may not be wrong per-se, but if the lossage of prefix
> is the final goal (as opposed to an approach to gain other benefits,
> e.g. "now we do not have to use prefix, we can simplify these other
> things"), I do not know if it is worth it.
>
It is the final goal of this series. As motivation, see Jacobs comment above:
I had wondered why we used --prefix before.
Also when the submodule helper got in, reviewers (Jonathan) were confused and
asked for clarification of the prefix term. So either document the prefix term
(and come up with a reason why we don't use the standard mechanism,
which as you outlined in the other mail, may be performance as we skip one
chdir, but that sounds like weak argument to me) or remove the confusing part
of having a prefix, which is not the standard prefix inside C.
The other reason you gave below is also convincing: By having it in the prefix,
the C code is more likely correct and future proof.
On rewriting the whole submodule command in C (probably reiterating):
It is not my endgoal to rewrite every submodule related part in C. It
would be nice
if it would happen eventually, but for now I only rewrite parts that I
need in C. (i.e.
paralllelisation is hard in shell, if not impossible using posix shell
with no additional
dependencies [xargs, gnu parallel], so I moved that part to C.
Certain parts need a performance boost? Ok I'll do it in C.
That said, we may have the shell/C architecture for a longer time than planned,
which makes it important to comment/document the confusing parts. Instead
I'd rather not have confusing parts, so I see benefit in having the
goal of this series
to remove the --prefix.
--
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