On Thu, Feb 17 2022, Glen Choo wrote: > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Thu, Feb 10 2022, Glen Choo wrote: >> >>> Atharva Raykar (6): >>> submodule--helper: get remote names from any repository >>> submodule--helper: refactor get_submodule_displaypath() >>> submodule--helper: allow setting superprefix for init_submodule() >>> submodule--helper: run update using child process struct >>> builtin/submodule--helper.c: reformat designated initializers >>> submodule: move core cmd_update() logic to C >>> >>> Glen Choo (11): >>> submodule--helper: remove update-module-mode >>> submodule--helper: reorganize code for sh to C conversion >>> submodule--helper run-update-procedure: remove --suboid >>> submodule--helper run-update-procedure: learn --remote >>> submodule--helper: remove ensure-core-worktree >>> submodule--helper update-clone: learn --init >>> submodule--helper: move functions around >>> submodule--helper: reduce logic in run_update_procedure() >>> fixup! submodule--helper run-update-procedure: remove --suboid >>> fixup! submodule--helper run-update-procedure: learn --remote >>> fixup! submodule: move core cmd_update() logic to C >>> >>> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (3): >>> builtin/submodule--helper.c: rename option variables to "opt" >>> submodule--helper: don't use bitfield indirection for parse_options() >>> submodule tests: test for init and update failure output >> >> I think sending a version of this with the fixups squashed in as a v8 >> would be good, and perhaps addressing some of my comments. >> >> I don't know if my suggested split-up of "prep fixes" into another >> series would be a good thing to pursue overall, perhaps Junio will chime >> in on how he'd be most comfortable in merging this down. I'd think >> splitting such trivial fixes into their own series be easier to review, >> but perhaps not. > > Combing through the patches again, I couldn't really convince myself > that the patch 4..9 prep fixes make sense as obvious standalone fixes, > except maybe: > > - patch 4 submodule--helper: run update using child process struct > - patch 8 submodule tests: test for init and update failure output > - patch 9: 087bf43aba submodule--helper: remove update-module-mode > > But, since the 'final' patch (ignoring the fixup!-s) is consuming a huge > chunk of the work anyway, here's an alternative patch organization with > the fixup!-s squashed: > > = Move 'easy' and 'obviously correct' code from sh->C > - patches 8-9 Cleanup and introduce tests > - patches 1-4 Refactor existing functions, which enables.. > - patches 10-14 Move 'obviously correct' pieces of logic from sh-> C > > = Finalize move from sh->C > i.e. combine "run-update-procedure" and "update-clone" into "update" > - patches 5,7 Cleanup and prep > - patches 6,15-16 Shrinking the diff > - patch 17 Implement "git submodule--helper update" > > I'll send this if there are no objections :) Yes that sounds good, or rather, I haven't re-looked at that in detail, but I think if you think it makes sense we should go for it. Or rather, we should really be aiming to produce a patch series that makes sense in its current iteration, as opposed to optimizing for a diff against some ad-hoc re-roll I produced a few versions ago :) Thanks again for working on this & picking this up. It's great to see progress in this area!
