On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:36 AM Matheus Tavares Bernardino
<matheus.bernardino@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:26 AM Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 5:17 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Matheus Tavares Bernardino <matheus.bernardino@xxxxxx> writes:
> > >
> > > > The idea behind not skipping gitlinks here was to be compliant with
> > > > what we have in the working tree. In 4fd683b ("sparse-checkout:
> > > > document interactions with submodules"), we decided that, if the
> > > > sparse-checkout patterns exclude a submodule, the submodule would
> > > > still appear in the working tree. The purpose was to keep these
> > > > features (submodules and sparse-checkout) independent. Along the same
> > > > lines, I think we should always recurse into initialized submodules in
> >
> > Sorry if I missed it in the code, but do you check whether the
> > submodule is initialized before descending into it, or do you descend
> > into it based on it just being a submodule?
>
> We only descend if the submodule is initialized. The new code in this
> patch doesn't do this check, but it is already implemented in
> grep_submodule() (which is called by grep_tree() and grep_cache() when
> a submodule is found).
Good to know. To up the ante a bit: What if another branch has
directory that doesn't exist in HEAD or the current checkout, and
within that directory is a submodule. Would it be recursed into?
What if it matched the sparsity paths? (Is it even possible to
recurse into it?)
