Re: Latest master failing t7401 submodule tests

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 01:28:01PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Continuing to mutter to myself...  I am suspecting that the right solution
> to the issue $gmane/140066 raised may be your "dwim-ref fix in 003c6ab
> (dwim_ref: fix dangling symref warning, 2010-02-16) and a patch along the
> line of the attached (with 3deea89 reverted of course).

I am totally clueless about submodules, not having ever actually used
them myself. So I will let others weigh in on whether "git submodule
summary" on an unborn branch makes any sense. But:

  1. _if_ it is not a sensible thing, then your patch below:

> diff --git a/wt-status.c b/wt-status.c
> index 5807fc3..1cca3aa 100644
> --- a/wt-status.c
> +++ b/wt-status.c
> @@ -476,6 +476,9 @@ static void wt_status_print_submodule_summary(struct wt_status *s, int uncommitt
>  		NULL
>  	};
>  
> +	if (s->is_initial && !uncommitted)
> +		return;
> +
>  	sprintf(summary_limit, "%d", s->submodule_summary);
>  	snprintf(index, sizeof(index), "GIT_INDEX_FILE=%s", s->index_file);

Seems like the right thing, to protect git-status users.

  2. If it is sensible, then the hunk we both posted (to check for args
     before shift) makes sense to me. Whether the "compare against empty
     tree" bit makes sense is beyond my submodule cluelessness to
     determine (but it intuitively sounds right to me).

In either case, I think that:

> We _might_ also want to revert 003c6ab, though it is more or less an
> independent issue.

reverting 003c6ab is not a good idea. As far as I am concerned, it was a
bugfix.

-Peff