From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sylvain Joyeux Subject: Re: [PATCH] better git-submodule status output Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 18:07:59 +0200 Message-ID: <20080706160758.GA23385@jhaampe.org> References: <20080701150119.GE5852@joyeux> <7vhcb3o7q3.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Junio C Hamano , Lars Hjemli , Ping Yin , Mark Levedahl , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Jul 06 18:37:44 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KFXF4-0006iQ-Rv for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2008 18:37:39 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756804AbYGFQgg (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jul 2008 12:36:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757218AbYGFQgg (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jul 2008 12:36:36 -0400 Received: from mx1.polytechnique.org ([129.104.30.34]:47349 "EHLO mx1.polytechnique.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756792AbYGFQge (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jul 2008 12:36:34 -0400 Received: from jhaampe.org (p5B3CCD36.dip.t-dialin.net [91.60.205.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ssl.polytechnique.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C87B933175; Sun, 6 Jul 2008 18:08:02 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP at djali.polytechnique.org (Sun Jul 6 18:08:03 2008 +0200 (CEST)) X-Spam-Flag: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.267199, queueID=AAE7833178 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: > > Which one is the commit message ;-)? > > I think it is clear that Sylvain has not read > Documentation/SubmittingPatches yet. Sylvain *has* read SubmittingPatches but has not understood every detail of this very long document. If you could enlighten me on what is wrong ... > > People who rely on working submodule support, do you have any feedback > > on this patch? > > Not yet. Will test/comment when the spurious "fetch" is fixed. I thought that the only thing that 'fetch' does is update FETCH_HEAD. My problem is that doing the fetch is the only way to know what is the status of the submodule w.r.t. the registered commit. If you have a better way to get that information, I'm all ears :P -- Sylvain