Ping Yin schrieb:
> +static void wt_status_print_submodule_summary(struct wt_status *s)
> +{
> + struct child_process sm_summary;
> + const char *argv[] = {
> + "submodule",
> + "summary",
> + "--cached",
> + "--for-status",
> + "--summary-limit",
> + summary_limit,
Where is summary_limit? Did you split this patch series incorrectly?
> + s->amend ? "HEAD^" : "HEAD",
Any chance that we avoid "HEAD^" here? Perhaps we have the SHA1 around
somewhere? I fear that our MSYS bash mangles it into "HEAD". I shall test it.
BTW, you don't mention the prerequisites of this series. I assume it
builds on top of your "[PATCH v5 0/5] git-submodule summary" series.
> + sm_summary.no_stderr = 1;
Why this? If the submodule summary has errors we certainly want to see them.
> @@ -321,6 +349,9 @@ void wt_status_print(struct wt_status *s)
> }
>
> wt_status_print_changed(s);
> + // must flush s->fp since following call will write to s->fp in a child process
> + fflush(s->fp);
> + wt_status_print_submodule_summary(s);
Hmm. Aren't you unconditionally spawning "git submodule summary" for each
git-status/git-commit?
-- Hannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
