On 08/03, Stefan Beller wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The function 'submodule_from_name()' is being used incorrectly here as a
> > submodule path is being used instead of a submodule name. Since the
> > correct function to use with a path to a submodule is already being used
> > ('submodule_from_path()') let's remove the call to
> > 'submodule_from_name()'.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> In case a reroll is needed, you could incorperate Jens feedback
> stating that 851e18c385 should have done it.
K I'll add that into the commit message.
>
> > ---
> > submodule.c | 2 --
> > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/submodule.c b/submodule.c
> > index 5139b9256..19bd13bb2 100644
> > --- a/submodule.c
> > +++ b/submodule.c
> > @@ -1177,8 +1177,6 @@ static int get_next_submodule(struct child_process *cp,
> > continue;
> >
> > submodule = submodule_from_path(&null_oid, ce->name);
> > - if (!submodule)
> > - submodule = submodule_from_name(&null_oid, ce->name);
> >
> > default_argv = "yes";
> > if (spf->command_line_option == RECURSE_SUBMODULES_DEFAULT) {
> > --
> > 2.14.0.rc1.383.gd1ce394fe2-goog
> >
--
Brandon Williams
