From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-a2-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-a2-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.153]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 120D142A83 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 2025 23:32:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.153 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1749252747; cv=none; b=DK9zjD9vebThAaAMKUMtzrs4pXRksETgGJzJZt4P9CMDZ2phJligd6FA3+tVaq9XW/wwve7Jb2G3Ib6OKsIDCNXLHgXLUEg93x+L+9TSKt65OeV1iG6gWtrVlEAzsKtqQiFcfo922q1AzV2XlLq4xFlsA2Fwg8vAtZICLTBGaPQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1749252747; c=relaxed/simple; bh=4sggu1dc3SaTXqQRozhbbv090JXc1mw0nXY6+XxYSrA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=AAilWSO2HA5HHcB6F0XXw/6Gv5i9yrOKBmQEs2QXM5BZzt/6xsSvxNPEUx64w4+aRT6ya+Aejy0lxGko9DOLEl5WquhSnWHKyWSB1UAKirO+DAKa1fPXTum3mSpZHcVPDY5/D9mNwav4B9TkoXV+2joCXN7DjhDJudE+i861a+8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=Z4AUU3E1; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=ly5aAGNG; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.153 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="Z4AUU3E1"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="ly5aAGNG" Received: from phl-compute-09.internal (phl-compute-09.phl.internal [10.202.2.49]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A1C01140116; Fri, 6 Jun 2025 19:32:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-01 ([10.202.2.160]) by phl-compute-09.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 06 Jun 2025 19:32:24 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1749252744; x=1749339144; bh=LH3E0CdRiT 3UZkcOXydlkp253E1m5PI4zvJw/OV41rE=; b=Z4AUU3E1Kv3ydBovVbZbjitJYH L77hpkzgKeNBAUywkrV4RPqgZN+v1M5e2uoN0oMV2iTLJSwodanwzp/ww3rYGPTq 927YTHwWUN/VNqh00JMyU2pAOfQTeCypFct3iOICdjIO9tyUw1/JZGLGRV3oYTFN pHCkFBx/19IHl+uh/TvRHDcBECeOzagBuUVVYd7ipOS4yk4FZo4IDsRN88QrkPwc UfxYFo741xkWHAdIuDOPzZ49WjjzR38fDZGY6Qt0kti0pmN5Rpc0jPiCLTI8dVQ2 9hmHnOG9HTDVtw8bDPw1e3qbztHFVd70gA8ldkIQV9+z9cNFZ+cP4BXcO0cw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t= 1749252744; x=1749339144; bh=LH3E0CdRiT3UZkcOXydlkp253E1m5PI4zvJ w/OV41rE=; b=ly5aAGNGu7mhx6CJdseK72/Kd0lUAy+jytprScbdw10xs0tmTJc c8B/E7GJZ/3TH2g1MaXINvjYDAiQSFGkl0NOWuJKzH+/9BXqRO1NZOpshXg3+Y2g SzOR7E906mDiLV5ziPJ/CfVCJEOA/8IyIdB6E7XOU2oDh1LiQAoVsW1ekGAEy+y+ VslBebR6sfFFYvOYsEqljTdxjQL09YfgNQP3j6SQuDxwhTN4KkvyRqLYm+Fcekpt bYCL9untZoGacGjQ5otY/xGmcOMXb83/jEo4DworhhNai/zG6FHSP5MncQcahJ23 pX7cnn1kYRegfQZEo8A2XwbZzb5pd7cgByQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtddugdehjeehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfu rfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnh htshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtredttdertden ucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcuvecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogi drtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepfeevteetjeehueegffelvdetieevffeufeej leeuffetiefggfeftdfhfeeigeeinecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrg hmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghp thhtohepgedpmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepjhgrtghosgdrvgdrkh gvlhhlvghrsehinhhtvghlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithesvhhgvghrrdhkvghr nhgvlhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopehpshesphhkshdrihhmpdhrtghpthhtohepghhith hsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 6 Jun 2025 19:32:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jacob Keller Cc: Git Mailing List , Patrick Steinhardt Subject: Re: issue with git submodules and a clone.defaultRemoteName different than origin? In-Reply-To: (Jacob Keller's message of "Fri, 6 Jun 2025 14:29:48 -0700") References: <4f638125-39e0-43a1-9c58-35c2d433042f@intel.com> <48c2af0f-348a-4443-a8b7-74ea4b666bff@intel.com> Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2025 16:32:21 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Jacob Keller writes: > It looks like those end up in the "read_remotes_file" and > "read_branches_file" functions which are deprecated, and planned to be > removed in 3.0... > > Would patches to modify those to take a repository pointer in order to > allow callers of read_config() to work properly with a submodule > repository be acceptable? The recent trend has been that it generally is very much welcomed to fix such a code path that takes "repo" at an entry point but ends up deep in its callchain to ignore it and use the_repository instead, even without a potential use case to benefit from such a change. You have a concrete use case, so I would suspect it is even better than "acceptable". Patrick, what do you think? Thanks.