On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 6:56 AM, Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> submodule.c | 8 ++++++++
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/submodule.c b/submodule.c
> index e1196fd..29efee9 100644
> --- a/submodule.c
> +++ b/submodule.c
> @@ -531,6 +531,14 @@ static int submodule_has_commits(const char *path, struct sha1_array *commits)
> static int submodule_needs_pushing(const char *path, struct sha1_array *commits)
> {
> if (!submodule_has_commits(path, commits))
> + /* NEEDSWORK: The correct answer here is "We do not
style nit:
/*
* Usually we prefer comments with both the first and last line of the
comment "empty".
*/
/* or just a one liner */
AFAICT these are the only two modes that we prefer in Git.
For a discussion of all the other style, enjoy Linus' guidance. ;)
http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1607.1/00627.html
> "We do not know" ...
... because there is no way to check for us as we don't have the
submodule commits.
" We do consider it safe as no one in their sane mind would
have changed the submodule pointers without having the
submodule around. If a user did however change the submodules
without having the submodule commits around, this indicates an
expert who knows what they were doing."
> We currently
> + * proceed pushing here as if the submodules commits are
> + * available on a remote. Since we can not check the
> + * remote availability for this submodule we should
> + * consider changing this behavior to: Stop here and
> + * tell the user how to skip this check if wanted.
> + */
> return 0;
Thanks for adding the NEEDSWORK, I just wrote the above lines
to clarify my thought process, not as a suggestion for change.
Overall the series looks good to me; the nits are minor IMHO.
Thanks,
Stefan