On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Ramsay Jones
<ramsay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 23/02/17 22:57, Stefan Beller wrote:
>> In later patches we introduce the options and flag for commands
>> that modify the working directory, e.g. git-checkout.
>>
>> This piece of code will be used universally for
>> all these working tree modifications as it
>> * supports dry run to answer the question:
>> "Is it safe to change the submodule to this new state?"
>> e.g. is it overwriting untracked files or are there local
>> changes that would be overwritten?
>> * supports a force flag that can be used for resetting
>> the tree.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> submodule.c | 135 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> submodule.h | 7 ++++
>> 2 files changed, 142 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/submodule.c b/submodule.c
>> index 0b2596e88a..a2cf8c9376 100644
>> --- a/submodule.c
>> +++ b/submodule.c
>> @@ -1239,6 +1239,141 @@ int bad_to_remove_submodule(const char *path, unsigned flags)
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> +static int submodule_has_dirty_index(const struct submodule *sub)
>> +{
>> + struct child_process cp = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT;
>> +
>> + prepare_submodule_repo_env_no_git_dir(&cp.env_array);
>> +
>> + cp.git_cmd = 1;
>> + argv_array_pushl(&cp.args, "diff-index", "--quiet", \
>> + "--cached", "HEAD", NULL);
>> + cp.no_stdin = 1;
>> + cp.no_stdout = 1;
>> + cp.dir = sub->path;
>> + if (start_command(&cp))
>> + die("could not recurse into submodule '%s'", sub->path);
>> +
>> + return finish_command(&cp);
>> +}
>> +
>> +void submodule_reset_index(const char *path)
>
> I was just about to send a patch against the previous series
> (in pu branch last night), but since you have sent another
> version ...
>
> In the last series this was called 'submodule_clean_index()'
> and, since it is a file-local symbol, should be marked with
> static. I haven't applied these patches to check, but the
> interdiff in the cover letter leads me to believe that this
> will also apply to the renamed function.
>
> [The patch subject was also slightly different.]
>
good catch. Yes submodule_reset_index
ought to be static.
fixed in a reroll.