On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> writes: > >>> In the function push_submodule[1] we use add_submodule_odb[2] to determine >>> if a submodule has been populated. However the function does not work with >>> the submodules objects that are added, instead a new child process is used >>> to perform the actual push in the submodule. >>> >>> Use is_submodule_populated[3] that is cheaper to guard from unpopulated >>> submodules. >>> >>> [1] 'push_submodule' was added in eb21c732d6 (push: teach >>> --recurse-submodules the on-demand option, 2012-03-29) >>> [2] 'add_submodule_odb' was introduced in 752c0c2492 (Add the >>> --submodule option to the diff option family, 2009-10-19) >>> [3] 'is_submodule_populated' was added in 5688c28d81 (submodules: >>> add helper to determine if a submodule is populated, 2016-12-16) >> >> These footnotes don't answer the question that I really have: why did >> this use add_submodule_odb in the first place? >> >> E.g. did the ref iteration code require access to the object store >> previously and stop requiring it later? > > Yes, the most important question is if it is safe to lose the access > to the object store of the submodule. It is an endgame we should > aim for to get rid of add_submodule_odb(), but does the rest of this > codepath not require objects in the submodule at all or do we still > need to change something to make it so?
Yes, as the code in the current form as well as in its first occurrence used the result of add_submodule_odb to determine if to spawn a child process.
