On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 02:01:05PM -0500, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 07:31:25PM +0100, Heiko Voigt wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 04:00:15PM -0500, W. Trevor King wrote:
> > > Because you need to recurse through submodules for `update --branch`
> > > even if "$subsha1" == "$sha1", I had to amend the conditional
> > > controlling that block.  This broke one of the existing tests, which I
> > > "fixed" in patch 4.  I think a proper fix would involve rewriting
> > > 
> > >   (clear_local_git_env; cd "$sm_path" &&
> > >    ( (rev=$(git rev-list -n 1 $sha1 --not --all 2>/dev/null) &&
> > >     test -z "$rev") || git-fetch)) ||
> > >   die "$(eval_gettext "Unable to fetch in submodule path '\$sm_path'")"
> > > 
> > > but I'm not familiar enough with rev-list to want to dig into that
> > > yet.  If feedback for the earlier three patches is positive, I'll work
> > > up a clean fix and resubmit.
> > 
> > You probably need to separate your handling here. The comparison of the
> > currently checked out sha1 and the recorded sha1 is an optimization
> > which skips unnecessary fetching in case the submodules commits are
> > already correct. This code snippet checks whether the to be checked out
> > sha1 is already local and also skips the fetch if it is. We should not
> > break that.
> 
> Agreed.  However, determining if the target $sha1 is local should have
> nothing to do with the current checked out $subsha1.

Erm, I clearly wasn't getting enough sleep heading into yesterday,
because when I drop the hack patch #4, reinstall, and retest, I no
longer get the bad-fetch error.  I'm not quite sure what was going on,
but please pretend I never mentioned it ;).

-- 
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy