Am 31.05.2013 21:40, schrieb John Keeping:
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 09:23:40PM +0200, Jens Lehmann wrote:
>> Am 30.05.2013 01:58, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
>>> * jk/submodule-subdirectory-ok (2013-04-24) 3 commits
>>> (merged to 'next' on 2013-04-24 at 6306b29)
>>> + submodule: fix quoting in relative_path()
>>> (merged to 'next' on 2013-04-22 at f211e25)
>>> + submodule: drop the top-level requirement
>>> + rev-parse: add --prefix option
>>>
>>> Allow various subcommands of "git submodule" to be run not from the
>>> top of the working tree of the superproject.
>>
>> The summary and status commands are looking good in this version
>> (they are now showing the submodule directory paths relative to
>> the current directory). Apart from that my other remarks from
>> gmane $221575 still seem to apply. And this series has only tests
>> for status, summary and add (and that just with an absolute URL),
>> I'd rather like to see a test for each submodule command (and a
>> relative add to) to document the desired behavior.
>
> To summarize what I think are the outstanding issues from your email:
>
> * Should '$sm_path' be relative in "submodule foreach"?
> * "submodule add" with a relative path
> * "submodule init" initializes all submodules
> * Tests
>
> The current version does make '$sm_path' relative in "submodule
> foreach", although it's hard to spot because we have to leave doing so
> until right before the "eval".
Yes. If I read the code correctly the submodule is cd'ed in before
the foreach command is executed, so $sm_path should only be used for
displaying info about where the command is executed anyway. Looks
like your code is doing the right thing adjusting $sm_path to be
relative to the directory the user is in. But a test showing that
would really be nice ;-)
> I'm not sure what you mean about "submodule add" - the new version
> treats the "path" argument as relative (providing it is not an absolute
> path). The "repository" argument is not changed by running from a
> subdirectory but I think that's correct since it is documented as being
> relative to the superproject's origin repository.
Sorry, I should have been more specific here. I saw that you did some
changes to make "submodule add" do the right thing with relative paths,
but the following change to t7406 does not work like I believe it
should but instead makes the test fail:
-------------------8<---------------------
diff --git a/t/t7406-submodule-update.sh b/t/t7406-submodule-update.sh
index a4ffea0..9766b9e 100755
--- a/t/t7406-submodule-update.sh
+++ b/t/t7406-submodule-update.sh
@@ -559,7 +559,9 @@ test_expect_success 'add different submodules to the same pa
test_expect_success 'submodule add places git-dir in superprojects git-dir' '
(cd super &&
mkdir deeper &&
- git submodule add ../submodule deeper/submodule &&
+ (cd deeper &&
+ git submodule add ../../submodule submodule
+ ) &&
(cd deeper/submodule &&
git log > ../../expected
) &&
-------------------8<---------------------
> "submodule init" is behaving in the same way as "deinit" - if you say
> "submodule init ." then it will only initialize submodules below the
> current directory. The difference is that "deinit" dies if it is not
> given any arguments whereas "init" will initialize everything from the
> top level down. I'm not sure whether to change this; given the
> direction "git add -u" is heading in for 2.0 I think the current
> behaviour is the most consistent with the rest of Git.
I meant that both commands still print the submodule names from the
top-level directory, not the one the user is in.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
