On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 8:06 AM, Heiko Voigt <[email protected]> wrote:
> We are iterating over each pushed ref and want to check whether it
> contains changes to submodules. Instead of immediately checking each ref
> lets first collect them and then do the check for all of them in one
> revision walk.
>
> Signed-off-by: Heiko Voigt <[email protected]>
> ---
> submodule.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> submodule.h | 5 +++--
> transport.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++--------
> 3 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/submodule.c b/submodule.c
> index 59c9d15905..5044afc2f8 100644
> --- a/submodule.c
> +++ b/submodule.c
> @@ -522,6 +522,13 @@ static int has_remote(const char *refname, const struct
> object_id *oid,
> return 1;
> }
>
> +static int append_hash_to_argv(const unsigned char sha1[20], void *data)
> +{
> + struct argv_array *argv = (struct argv_array *) data;
> + argv_array_push(argv, sha1_to_hex(sha1));
Nit of the day:
When using the struct child-process, we have the oldstyle argv NULL
terminated array as
well as the new style args argv_array. So in that context we'd prefer
`args` as a name for
argv_array as that helps to distinguish from the old array type.
Here however `argv` seems to be a reasonable name, in fact whenever we
do not deal with
child processes, we seem to not like the `args` name:
$ git grep argv_array |wc -l
577
$ git grep argv_array |grep args |wc -l
293
The rest looks good to me. :)
