On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> Subject: [PATCH v2] submodule: check for NULL return of >> get_submodule_ref_store() >> >> Maybe more imperative, telling what we actually want >> to achieve instead of what we do? >> >> submodule: report deleted submodules as not initialized >> >>> If we can't find a ref store for a submodule then assume it the latter >>> is not initialized (or was removed). Print a status line accordingly >>> instead of causing a segmentation fault by passing NULL as the first >>> parameter of refs_head_ref(). >> >> Thanks for the message here. Looks good! >> ... >> Which would be added in t/t7400-submodule-basic.sh >> >> Thanks for coming up with a sensible patch! > > I take the above to mean that you as a contributor active in this > area like the general idea in the patch but not volunteering to take > this topic over Rereading the discussion, I overlooked the author of the second patch to be Rene (for some reason I thought someone else would have written that patch. Sorry about that!) > and instead trust René to tie the loose ends with a > reroll, taking hints from your suggestions? As Rene likes. I can reroll that patch with a test, too. I'd pick it up after rerolling the series from yesterday (moving nested submodules). > I just wanted to make sure that we won't be confused whose turn it > is next (e.g. me waiting for update to t7400 from you or René doing > the same). Thanks, Stefan
