On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 4:38 PM Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Another thing you need to clarify is what happens if the fetch-by-commit > > > fails. Right now, it seems that it will make the whole thing fail, which > > > might be a surprising change in behavior. > > > > But a positive surprise, I would assume? > > Whether positive or negative, I think that this needs to be mentioned in > the commit message. > > As for positive or negative, I tend to agree that it's positive - sure, > some previously successful fetches would now fail, but the results of > those fetches could not be recursively checked out anyway. > > > > The test stores the result in a normal branch, not a remote tracking > > > branch. Is storing in a normal branch required? > > > > In the test we fetch from another repository, such that in the > > repository-under-test this will show up in a remote tracking branch? I messed up there. Yes, we need to fetch into a normal branch such that the logic of check_for_new_submodule_commits triggers no matter where it is on the remote. Your experiment below shows that we cannot fetch into FETCH_HEAD: > If that were true, I would expect that when this line: > > > git fetch --recurse-submodules --recurse-submodules-default on-demand origin refs/changes/2:refs/heads/my_branch && > > is replaced by this line: > > > git fetch --recurse-submodules --recurse-submodules-default on-demand origin refs/changes/2 && > > then things would still work. The tests pass with the first line (after > I fixed a type mismatch) but not with the second. (Also I don't think a > remote-tracking branch is generated here - the output printed doesn't > indicate so, and refs/changes/2 is not a branch anyway.) > > > Also, do you know why this is required? A naive reading of the patch > > > leads me to believe that this should work even if merely fetching to > > > FETCH_HEAD. > > > > See the next patch, check_for_new_submodule_commits() is missing > > for FETCH_HEAD. > > I see in the next patch that there is an "if" branch in > store_updated_refs() without update_local_ref() in which > "check_for_new_submodule_commits(&rm->old_oid)" needs to be inserted. I > think this is a symptom that maybe check_for_new_submodule_commits() > needs to be extracted from update_local_ref() and put into > store_updated_refs() instead? In update_local_ref(), it is called on > ref->new_oid, which is actually the same as rm->old_oid anyway (there is > an oidcpy earlier). I'll look into that. > > > What is a "default" submodule and why would you need one? > > > > s/default/artificial/. Such a submodule is a submodule that has no > > config in the .gitmodules file and its name == path. > > We need to keep those around for historic reasons AFAICT, c.f. > > c68f837576 (implement fetching of moved submodules, 2017-10-16) > > Ah, OK. I would call it a fake submodule then, and copy over the "No > entry in .gitmodules?" comment. "fake submodule" sounds like http://debuggable.com/posts/git-fake-submodules:4b563ee4-f3cc-4061-967e-0e48cbdd56cb which is what I think of when hearing fake submodules.
