Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> This seems to heavily conflict with "clone, submodule: pass partial >> clone filters to submodules, 2022-02-04" by Josh Steadmon >> <690d2316ad518ea4551821b2b3aa652996858475.1644034886.git.steadmon@xxxxxxxxxx> >> in both builtins/submodule--helper.c and git-submodule.sh. >> >> It also removes the code that "submodule: record superproject gitdir >> during 'update', 2022-02-03" by Emily Shaffer >> <20220203215914.683922-5-emilyshaffer@xxxxxxxxxx>, so what the other >> topic ends up adding to the shell script needs to eventually be >> redone in the C code. >> >> I think "superproject aware" topic would see a reroll due to a >> slight redesign. I am not sure how solid the design of the >> "pass down partial clone filter" topic is at this moment. Hm, I haven't looked at where the conflicts are yet, but I'll get to it as I'm reviewing the rest of the feedback. And on that note, what do you think of Ævar's suggestion to split off the 'easy to review' and 'obvious' patches into their own preparatory series? I wonder if this would make it harder or easier to manage the conflicts. > I can merge this to seen minus the above two topics and get it > compile, but it also seems to have some interaction with 961b130d > (branch: add --recurse-submodules option for branch creation, > 2022-01-28) and makes the t3207, tests added by that other topic, > fail X-<. Oof, that's embarrassing of me, let me take a look at that. There's a nontrivial chance that the "branch --recurse-submodules" tests caught an actual regression.
