Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Calvin Wan <calvinwan@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> submodule.c | 154 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > I think the way to implement this is to have a parallel implementation, > and then have the serial implementation call the parallel implementation's > functions, or have a common set of functions that both the parallel > implementation and the serial implementation call. Here, it seems that > the parallel implementation exists completely separate from the serial > implementation, with no code shared. That makes it both more difficult to > review, and also makes it difficult to make changes to how we diff submodules > in the future (since we would have to make changes in two parts of the code). It seems that most of the code is copied from is_submodule_modified(), so a possible way to do this would be: - Split is_submodule_modified() into 2 functions, one that sets up the "git status --porcelain=2" process (named something like setup_status_porcelain()) and one that parses its output (this is parse_status_porcelain() in Patch 2). The serial implementation (is_submodule_modified()) uses both of these and has some extra logic to run the child process. - Refactor get_next_submodule_status() (from this patch) to use setup_status_porcelain().
