From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0AC220986 for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 09:23:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965868AbcJFJXk (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Oct 2016 05:23:40 -0400 Received: from smtprelay04.ispgateway.de ([80.67.31.42]:47569 "EHLO smtprelay04.ispgateway.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965567AbcJFJXi (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Oct 2016 05:23:38 -0400 Received: from [84.46.92.130] (helo=book.hvoigt.net) by smtprelay04.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1bs4tq-0005tH-3j; Thu, 06 Oct 2016 11:23:34 +0200 Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 11:23:32 +0200 From: Heiko Voigt To: Stefan Beller Cc: gitster@pobox.com, git@vger.kernel.org, peff@peff.net, torvalds@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 1/2] push: change submodule default to check when submodules exist Message-ID: <20161006092332.GB38550@book.hvoigt.net> References: <20161004210359.15266-1-sbeller@google.com> <20161005135325.GC30930@book.hvoigt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161005135325.GC30930@book.hvoigt.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Df-Sender: aHZvaWd0QGh2b2lndC5uZXQ= Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 03:53:25PM +0200, Heiko Voigt wrote: > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 02:03:58PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote: > > Jeff, > > thanks for the suggestions, both git_path(..) as well as checking the config, > > this seems quite readable to me: > > When reading the discussion I thought the same: What about the > "old-style" repositories. I like this one. Checking both locations > is nice. BTW, since it seems we all agree on the direction. Should we add some tests? Cheers Heiko