Re: [PATCH] submodule: use cheaper check for submodule pushes

[Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>]

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> In the function push_submodule[1] we use add_submodule_odb[2] to determine
>>> if a submodule has been populated. However the function does not work with
>>> the submodules objects that are added, instead a new child process is used
>>> to perform the actual push in the submodule.
>>>
>>> Use is_submodule_populated[3] that is cheaper to guard from unpopulated
>>> submodules.
>>>
>>> [1] 'push_submodule' was added in eb21c732d6 (push: teach
>>>     --recurse-submodules the on-demand option, 2012-03-29)
>>> [2] 'add_submodule_odb' was introduced in 752c0c2492 (Add the
>>>     --submodule option to the diff option family, 2009-10-19)
>>> [3] 'is_submodule_populated' was added in 5688c28d81 (submodules:
>>>     add helper to determine if a submodule is populated, 2016-12-16)
>>
>> These footnotes don't answer the question that I really have: why did
>> this use add_submodule_odb in the first place?
>>
>> E.g. did the ref iteration code require access to the object store
>> previously and stop requiring it later?
>
> Yes, the most important question is if it is safe to lose the access
> to the object store of the submodule.  It is an endgame we should
> aim for to get rid of add_submodule_odb(), but does the rest of this
> codepath not require objects in the submodule at all or do we still
> need to change something to make it so?

Yes, as the code in the current form as well as in its first occurrence
used the result of add_submodule_odb to determine if to spawn a child process.