Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/3] Use sha1collisiondetection as a submodule

[Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>]

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
<avarab@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 8:52 PM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 4:38 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
>> <avarab@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 7:39 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>>> From: Marc Stevens <marc@marc-stevens.nl>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some big-endian platforms define _BIG_ENDIAN, which the test at the
>>>>>> beginning of file has missed.  Also, when the input is not aligned,
>>>>>> some platforms trigger SIGBUS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This change corresponds to 33a694a9 ("Fix issues with a big endian
>>>>>> platform", 2017-05-15) in the history of the upstream repository
>>>>>> https://github.com/cr-marcstevens/sha1collisiondetection
>>>>>
>>>>> Then why not just update sha1dc from upstream instead of
>>>>> cherry-picking one patch from them?
>>>>
>>>> See the original message upthread.  I did the cherry-pick simply
>>>> because that was what Marc instructed the patch recipient to do ;-).
>>>
>>> Since that patch is now in Marc's upstream code we can just update to
>>> that.
>>>
>>> While we're at it let's see if Marc will take a patch so that we can
>>> use his code as-is with some Makefile trickery of our own, instead of
>>> having to solve merge conflicts each time we update from him. I'll
>>> submit a pull request for that shortly.
>>>
>>> And since if and when that pull request gets accepted we're at the
>>> point of being able to use the upstream code as-is & don't need to
>>> locally modify it, we can just use a submodule to track it.
>>
>> As someone who works on submodules: YAY! This sounds
>> wonderful in the sense that more git developers experience the
>> sharp edges (if any) of submodules and would fix them.
>
> Yeah I agree git.git should dogfood submodules, and this seemed like a
> perfect opportunity for thaht.
>
> As noted later in your mail everything may not be ready, so when I
> submit a non-RFC version of this (after upstream pulls my changes,
> hopefully), the 2nd and 3rd patches can just be dropped.
>
>> With the reset work on submodules (checkout, reset,
>> ls-files, grep) and more in the works (better push/pull)
>> we may be close to prime time.
>>
>> However we do distribute tarballs (well, Junio does),
>> which is not yet supported to include submodules.
>
> Ouch. So there's no non-manual way with git-archive to make a tarball
> release of a git project using submodules?

Yes. Ouch.

>> We could make a friendly fork of it and put it next to all the repositories
>> of https://git-blame.blogspot.com/p/git-public-repositories.html
>> and then use relative URLs in the .gitmodules file.
>
> Wouldn't we lose the ability to just "pull" the module to see if
> upstream changed, i.e. now we'd need to manually munge the URL first.

I assumed more people would fetch git and trust the community rather
than people checking if SHA1DC is up-to-date, so I thought it is easier for
the minority to rewrite a URL.

> If so having a fetchurl be a relative URL similar to git-push's
> pushurl would solve it wouldn't it? I.e. a project like git could say
> "here's my mirrors" different from "here's my upstream".

I would think so.