On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 2:29 PM Glen Choo <chooglen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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(). That sounds like a reasonable plan to me. Thanks!
