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 majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html