Re: [PATCH 3/4] submodule.c: harden submodule_move_head against broken submodules

I think "harden" is the wrong word to use in the subject - to me, "harden" implies that you're defending against an invalid use. But here, not only is the use valid, but this patch also takes steps to support it. On 04/11/2017 04:49 PM, Stefan Beller wrote: Early on in submodule_move_head

Re: [PATCH 3/4] submodule.c: harden submodule_move_head against broken submodules

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Brandon Williams wrote: > On 04/11, Stefan Beller wrote: >> Early on in submodule_move_head just after the check if the submodule is >> initialized, we need to check if the submodule is populated correctly. >> >> If the submodule is initialized

Re: [PATCH 3/4] submodule.c: harden submodule_move_head against broken submodules

On 04/11, Stefan Beller wrote: > Early on in submodule_move_head just after the check if the submodule is > initialized, we need to check if the submodule is populated correctly. > > If the submodule is initialized but doesn't look like populated, this > is a red flag and can indicate multiple

Re: [PATCH 3/4] submodule.c: harden submodule_move_head against broken submodules

From: "Stefan Beller" Early on in submodule_move_head just after the check if the submodule is initialized, we need to check if the submodule is populated correctly. If the submodule is initialized but doesn't look like populated, this s/like// or s/like/like it is/

[PATCH 3/4] submodule.c: harden submodule_move_head against broken submodules

Early on in submodule_move_head just after the check if the submodule is initialized, we need to check if the submodule is populated correctly. If the submodule is initialized but doesn't look like populated, this is a red flag and can indicate multiple sorts of failures: (1) The submodule may be