From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] git-submodule add: Add -r/--record option. Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:43:10 -0400 Message-ID: <20121029114310.GA16046@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1f6ee2966ffe0f58f4b96ae0efb2ffb13e2fa2d8.1351029479.git.wking@tremily.us> <50883E54.4080507@web.de> <20121025005307.GE801@odin.tremily.us> <508D9A12.6010104@web.de> <20121028223431.GF26675@odin.tremily.us> <20121029053401.GB30186@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20121029104544.GA2424@odin.tremily.us> <20121029105855.GA15075@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20121029112945.GD2424@odin.tremily.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Shawn Pearce , Jens Lehmann , Git , Nahor , Phil Hord To: "W. Trevor King" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Oct 29 12:43:28 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TSnkc-0001WY-FY for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:43:26 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758787Ab2J2LnO (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:43:14 -0400 Received: from 75-15-5-89.uvs.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([75.15.5.89]:42685 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758782Ab2J2LnN (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:43:13 -0400 Received: (qmail 19990 invoked by uid 107); 29 Oct 2012 11:43:55 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:43:55 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:43:10 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121029112945.GD2424@odin.tremily.us> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 07:29:45AM -0400, W. Trevor King wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 06:58:55AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > Can you send an updated version of the patch that summarizes the > > situation in the commit message? > > Sure. Should I include Phil's $submodule_ export, or would > you rather have that be a separate series? I think it probably makes sense as a separate patch in the same series, since it is meant to support the same workflows. I am not sure it is sufficient as-is, though. It does not seem to ever clear variables, only set them, which means that values could leak across iterations of the loop, or down to recursive calls. E.g., when the first submodule has submodule.*.foo set but the second one does not, you will still end up with $submodule_foo set when you process the second one. -Peff