Sorry for going silent right after bringing this up.
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I can't reproduce anything like the 8ms v.s. ~600ms difference you note
> here, but for me migrating it to a built-in is around 10% slower with
> "foreach" than the old "list". I wonder what results you get?
The repository, in which I observed this slowdown, has one hundred
modules.
> I sent in a topic to migrate it since you sent this report. I was going
> to do it in this development cycle, but this prompted me to do it
> earlier:
Thanks!
A lot more is happening here than I can quickly understand, but the last
commit mentions that the slowdown is now just 0.1, which would be good
enough for me, I think.
> On Sat, Oct 15 2022, Jonas Bernoulli wrote:
>
>> I just noticed that "submodule--helper name" was also removed, which I
>> also found useful in scripts. Please tell me if I am missing something,
>> but it seems I now have to do something like this instead:
>>
>> git config -f .gitmodules --list |
>> sed -n "s|^submodule.\([^.]*\).path=$path\$|\1|p"
>>
>> The old way was nicer:
>>
>> git submodule--helper name $path
>>
>> I realize submodule--helper is for internal use and using it anyway
>> comes with the risk of such removals and other changes, but again,
>> please consider restoring that or providing something similar in the
>> public interface.
>
> This however is another case, I removed "name" along with "list" and
> other leftover code we weren't using anymore for the internal-only
> "submodule--helper" (which is at turns out, was not as internal-only as
> we'd hoped).
>
> For "list" it's clear how to use "foreach" instead, but for "name" then
> AFAICT the "best" replacement is to do a:
>
> git submodule foreach 'echo $displaypath $name'
>
> And pipe that into grep/sed. If that's fast enough would it satisfy your
> use-case, or would a "name" equivalent be handy?
>
> I think the best way to prove that would be e.g.:
>
> git submodule foreach-format '%{name}' -- <pathspec>
>
> Which, due to the "foreach" taking N number of arguments isn't easy to
> add to "foreach" without the interface becoming somewhat tortured (we
> could add a [---pathspec=<pathspec>]...), but "-- <pathspec>" with a
> different subcommand name seems better.
I agree, that adding support for "-- <pathspec>" to an existing or new
subcommand, would make it unnecessary to bring back a "name" subcommand.
Will "foreach"/"foreach-format" continue to be limited to active
modules? Sometimes it would be nice to list all modules, including
those that are inactive. As mentioned earlier "git ls-files -s | grep
^160000" is enough to get a list of the module paths, but sometimes we
want more information, e.g., "git submodule list --include-inactive
--format '$name $is_active submodule.$name.url' -- <pathspec>".
Jonas
