From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE981F5AE for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 21:22:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230390AbhFOVYT (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jun 2021 17:24:19 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48604 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229931AbhFOVYS (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jun 2021 17:24:18 -0400 Received: from mail-oi1-x22d.google.com (mail-oi1-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22d]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB22BC06175F for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 14:22:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id x196so57391oif.10 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 14:22:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=7cJNS6J6UaqTAY8AK9Ps7p887rR3i5hBigWgA6Bg4iw=; b=ex+ijzpfRIK7sdITrVgqsCPhhM1efyxYpQH0BUAhyKUVqjUzDa06GOdGlT45di0jiB VMxl36QTW0+78l+yTRp1SXp7cV8WNUZnItehPCNZXG3KfHYj/q47vKPAw+KeC2KPV5B9 JFMvuY4vwbqKlnn0aNAZcgTG7bbauxlfz8GxoTuZWb4tdoysSnZ5WHQMJQyyNzCL4MWn bMl7Oy98BAquDEbtd3DUFTNsTjNj9OOtwGA3t9ihj3TT42jidUqf3xZ8vN0amZB8m94i 5cVvXb0a3Cbt1j3yYJLUXL3E4Z3iPNUIPEZv5XsFIFWHITts+aWT1PTzku9zEmVYakLl gTIw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7cJNS6J6UaqTAY8AK9Ps7p887rR3i5hBigWgA6Bg4iw=; b=LA+f3dkDlWcfnw8zOZcTWLQPm2yrfd7NYE2sjlkDfHBV5gA1dK9B7HTOEjDGPg/dMC gD/Uo86tq/9Pt/hvWUt2HISd3/wAqz3/sF/CGHRMcfwci7MJlZY7GQQuqCluF1Ns6ZEf H/8d+wXgcMn27lb8y7oMsBdWVjSmjla5itm4JbDn/rWNvP43pzR8j4+JlaQwnj5nFb3G rqoNz8s62OexXWHkwcCAmQsUuqo4N5BGnB7MiXZkaPReg9U+SHD1u4quvZZym37s50C7 uD5iNRAvROZPyfUVDBEysbD+ys5DPZsTpQ+nmYC8nC6Ac75QDU62ZIxIA2Zlp7/rruAb 1b9w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531w0W+FCSdGUxZlDg2syk1DOKZ9z93cErjA2nT8pYBPMjlT7zMJ cJh0fxsZYk/S+dEUcw3dRFUnDlgSfXYGu8EWfow= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzWFzKOeM1TCi19IwrtIQIZFmgfK7OYRgnU62iGkfugyWq4vf5wUFJbtAL0RyNAbM+lZA5P5B1W5FoMaxlVio4= X-Received: by 2002:aca:330a:: with SMTP id z10mr780410oiz.31.1623792132116; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 14:22:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Elijah Newren Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 14:22:00 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] First steps towards partial clone submodules To: Jonathan Tan Cc: Git Mailing List , Taylor Blau , Emily Shaffer , Junio C Hamano Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Saw this series mentioned in "What's cooking" and remembered I didn't give an update. On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 2:29 PM Elijah Newren wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 10:35 AM Jonathan Tan wrote: > > > > I think I've addressed all review comments. As for Junio's suggestion > > about also printing the type in the former patch 4 (now patch 5) [1], I > > decided to just leave the code as-is and not also print the type. > > > > The main changes are that patch 1 is somewhat rewritten - we still > > remove the global variable, but we no longer read the > > extensions.partialClone config directly from promisor-remote.c. Instead, > > we store it in struct repository when the format of a repository is > > being verified, and promisor-remote.c merely reads it from there. Patch > > 3 is a new patch that updates the environment variable preparation > > before it is moved in patch 4 (formerly patch 3). > > I've read through all the patches. 2 & 5 look good to me, I had small > nitpicks on 1 & 4, and I'm totally lost on patch 3. Patch 3 is just a > one-liner and it might be fine, but for some reason I can't figure out > the code before or after the patch even after digging around into > other commits and other files to try to get my bearings. Hopefully > someone else can comment on that one. I'm happy with Jonathan and Peff's responses on patch 3; as I mentioned above I just didn't understand the original code before Jonathan's changes. (Perhaps some comments could be added to clarify that code area, but again that's clarifying the code that existed before Jonathan's patch so it doesn't need to be part of his series.) So that only leaves my nitpicks on patches 1 & 4; otherwise the series looks good to me.