Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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 :) Agreed, makes sense. > Thanks again for working on this & picking this up. It's great to see > progress in this area! Thanks to you too for getting the ball rolling and lending me your thoughts :)
