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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 275841F859 for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 22:01:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755791AbcHSWAz (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Aug 2016 18:00:55 -0400 Received: from mail-yb0-f181.google.com ([209.85.213.181]:34513 "EHLO mail-yb0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755729AbcHSWAx (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Aug 2016 18:00:53 -0400 Received: by mail-yb0-f181.google.com with SMTP id d10so20072072ybi.1 for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 15:00:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=T+E/oQy/9n7/qgy3EvMao4bS8+bInpRbvd+ByvSuoLs=; b=mpQiJru5cOhLlBFikr8yL71azMutcDiI/cIr3Kxz4kO/bgydvRXZF7nHwOnRVh82t8 LsndahveDRRA9PHn/obyQp76GUzx9/ott4JSwwV1mrcWElsapBDiTcDfxqUAIbxyV/yI pcjmMu0M/FRo9RM2Rn4dyqkFaXULXCQMRqLhKBm6TZePg+H2ysX54k5LnkfxUAlr6HRB 6YAuy+/0rScwWaB/S0/deZL7iaGtTXrpEBCrLp3Aym2H4UHgQrIrIkceRXDslgi91MdH 3ScliNjO5Bf0zrDkhY1C5IE59LDZY0qjvC2nzTBDvdx6/9wVroJyd7ikH8DTEzZsVbx3 WlQg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=T+E/oQy/9n7/qgy3EvMao4bS8+bInpRbvd+ByvSuoLs=; b=C46ZE5zBkOfoOqH8OxoWWsGZNnIsLGNzDGti1wlnnofD/Ni9lT2++gD4tz97Fb0rNC UQNtt90VxGTdVN+EItP7s4+YuHLvAVJLz3LQK5MGbAgDA7LxuqZ6MPI4NA5t22TzHbGv EUD5sklBlyW/ou9Eih1ZjqXDqdMVOnQpsg5SNMyJXj2Klxi/GOVOwFXNUHgzMDrm052r A0AW+7PzApJV3feUNsVNRA+0tt2/eg431yGeNqqZ0fb+0bmush+EkvtLBsHh+lk6nV8l OQVCGfeFnJ0uCU22lgdpC7K5NcIwB1fDkG4jX4XGJ2sLBwtbggg3H3Q9Lix3ecyqdXxR tJ5w== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouueT4um2GJXw7QSrpqwxLI1UuKR0B+99jYp5omL6fVlRc04czNcJ/xMuLCc+B+wbip2xwE2IE5NPzWMQw== X-Received: by 10.37.119.134 with SMTP id s128mr8023468ybc.58.1471644052650; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 15:00:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.50.199 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 15:00:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20160819000031.24854-1-jacob.e.keller@intel.com> <20160819000031.24854-5-jacob.e.keller@intel.com> From: Jacob Keller Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 15:00:30 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/8] submodule: allow add_submodule_odb to work even if path is not checked out To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Jacob Keller , Git mailing list , Stefan Beller , Jeff King , Johannes Sixt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jacob Keller writes: > >> submodule. I think we already have the complete path. Or is the name >> *not* equivalent to the path? > > A submodule that is bound to top-level at "path" originally gets > "path" as its name. If you move it elsewhere, you do not want it to > lose its identity (and its place in .git/modules/* of the > top-level). so a submodule whose name is "path" can reside in the > new place after such a move. > Is there a way to do this lookup? I couldn't find it. >> There was no empty line in the place I copied from. > > Is that "because I copied from a source that is mistaken, I refuse > to make it right"? Or just an explanation why there is a mistake? > Or something else (like "we should update the original one while we > are at it as a pure clean-up")? That was an explanation for "I didn't understand that was a mistake" and a "if we fix this we might want to fix them also to avoid this same problem in the future". > >> If we put them in test_expect_success setup they aren't. > > Yes, that is why I said they are unnecessary. Let's minimize the > amount of random code that sits outside the control of the test > framework (i.e. test_expect_{success,failure}). > Yes I agree. Thanks, Jake > Thanks.