On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 07:29:45AM -0400, W. Trevor King wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 06:58:55AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: >> > Can you send an updated version of the patch that summarizes the >> > situation in the commit message? >> >> Sure. Should I include Phil's $submodule_<var-name> export, or would >> you rather have that be a separate series? > > I think it probably makes sense as a separate patch in the same series, > since it is meant to support the same workflows.
I agree. I did expect to clean it up some, but also to suffer some review. Feel free to clean it up as you see fit and submit it with your series. > I am not sure it is sufficient as-is, though. It does not seem to ever > clear variables, only set them, which means that values could leak > across iterations of the loop, [...] E.g., when > the first submodule has submodule.*.foo set but the second one does not, > you will still end up with $submodule_foo set when you process the > second one. Good point. That should not happen. > or down to recursive calls. Frankly, I consider that to be a feature. However, I can see how it would be considered inconsistent in many ways, so it's probably best to squash it. :-\ Phil -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
