Hi, Stefan Beller wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <[email protected]> > --- > submodule-config.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > submodule-config.h | 11 +++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+) Yay, this is much clearer. Thanks for indulging. [...] > +++ b/submodule-config.c [...] > @@ -311,6 +313,26 @@ static int parse_config(const char *var, const char > *value, void *data) > + else if (!skip_prefix(value, "!", > &submodule->update_command)) > + die(_("invalid value for %s"), var); Should this say else if (skip_prefix(value, "!", &submodule->update_command)) submodule->update = SM_UPDATE_COMMAND; else die(...); ? [...] > --- a/submodule-config.h > +++ b/submodule-config.h > @@ -4,6 +4,15 @@ > #include "hashmap.h" > #include "strbuf.h" > > +enum submodule_update_type { > + SM_UPDATE_CHECKOUT, > + SM_UPDATE_REBASE, > + SM_UPDATE_MERGE, > + SM_UPDATE_NONE, > + SM_UPDATE_COMMAND, > + SM_UPDATE_UNSPECIFIED > +}; If _UNSPECIFIED is equal to 0, that would futureproof this better against zero-initialized submodule structs without ->update explicitly set. After those two changes and the whitespace change Junio suggested, Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <[email protected]> -- 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
