On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> Anyway, I'll apply the "addition to the completion" patch. >>> >>> Thanks. >> >> Thanks for this patch! >> >> Note: if we ever decide to resurrect sb/submodule-default-path, >> we run into a merge conflict. The reasoning for using >> "--recurse-submodules" instead of a plain "--recurse" makes sense >> as well, so that merge conflict will be resolved in favor of this patch. > > Thanks for an advance warning. My rerere database has already been > taught about this conflict ;-) > > As to sb/submodule-default-path topic, which has been blocked on > still-in-flux attribute work, I am tempted to declare that the > attribute work is not yet thread-ready but it is in a good enough > shape to base other works on, and have them advance to 'next'. I am tempted to ask for delaying sb/submodule-default-path a bit more and see if there is an alternative solution. Inspired by Duys series on submodules and worktree I found a new way how to do the submodule management (separation of the submodule URL as a flag indicating the existence and the actual URL), and that will be very similar to what is implemented in sb/submodule-default-path just even more streamlined. (That said the state of that new series is still vapor and not yet solid, so ... it's hopes and dreams.) > > The traditional pattern of allowing the callers to randomly allocate > an array of "struct git_attr_check" and passing the pointer to its > first element to git_check_attr() function was impossible to extend > without having to update the callers, but we have migrated away from > the pattern and the attribute subsystem can be enhanced without > impacting the callers too much. > -- 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