Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> If we do not even have these commits locally, then there is no point >> attempting to push, so returning 0 (i.e. it is not "needs pushing" >> situation) is correct but it is a but subtle. It's not "we know >> they already have them", but it is "even if we tried to push, it >> won't do us or the other side any good." A single-liner in-code >> comment may help. > > First the naming part. How about: > > submodule_has_commits() Nice. > Returning 0 here means: "No push needed" but the correct answer would > be: "We do not know". Is it? Perhaps I am misreading the "submodule-has-commits"; I thought it was "the remote may or may not need updating, but we ourselves don't have what they may need to have commits in their submodule that are referenced by their superproject, so it would not help them even if we pushed our submodule to them". It indeed is different from "No push needed" (rather, "our pushing would be pointless"). > So how about: > > > if (!submodule_has_hashes(path, hashes)) > /* NEEDSWORK: The correct answer here is "We do not > * know" instead of "No". We currently proceed pushing > * here as if the submodules commits are available on a > * remote, which is not always correct. */ > return 0; I am not sure. What should happen in this scenario? * We have two remotes, A and B, for our superproject. * We are not interested in one submodule at path X. Our repository is primarily used to work on the superproject and possibly other submodules but not the one at path X. * We pulled from A to update ourselves. They were actively working on the submodule we are not interested in, and path X in the superproject records a new commit that we do not have. * We are now trying to push to B. Should different things happen in these two subcases? - We are not interested in submodule at path X, so we haven't even done "submodule init" on it. - We are not interested in submodule at path X, so even though we do have a rather stale clone of it, we do not usually bother updating what is checked out at path X and commit our changes outside that area. I tend to think that in these two cases the same thing should happen. I am not sure if that same thing should be rejection (i.e. "you do not know for sure that the commit at path X of the superproject you are pushing exists in the submodule repository at the receiving end, so I'd refuse to push the superproject"), as it makes the only remedy for the situation is for you to make a full clone of the submodule you are not interested in and you have never touched yourself in either of these two subcases.