From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marc Branchaud Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Tests for some submodule corner cases. Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 17:06:31 -0400 Message-ID: <4DE55857.3090706@xiplink.com> References: <1306792280-12768-1-git-send-email-marcnarc@xiplink.com> <4DE541EC.7010202@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Jens Lehmann X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue May 31 23:06:43 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QRW9D-00038h-AK for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 31 May 2011 23:06:43 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932527Ab1EaVGi (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 May 2011 17:06:38 -0400 Received: from smtp182.iad.emailsrvr.com ([207.97.245.182]:38063 "EHLO smtp182.iad.emailsrvr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932282Ab1EaVGh (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 May 2011 17:06:37 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp28.relay.iad1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 21E6CE014F; Tue, 31 May 2011 17:06:37 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp28.relay.iad1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: mbranchaud-AT-xiplink.com) with ESMTPSA id EA307E01C9; Tue, 31 May 2011 17:06:36 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Thunderbird/3.1.10 In-Reply-To: <4DE541EC.7010202@web.de> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 11-05-31 03:30 PM, Jens Lehmann wrote: > Am 30.05.2011 23:51, schrieb Marc Branchaud: >> Ran across some submodule behavior that seems wrong to me. I don't have the >> chops to fix the issues, so I thought I'd just point them out with some unit >> tests. > > Thanks for bringing these issues to our attention this way, having a way > to easily reproduce them is very much appreciated. > >> Patch 1 tests the case where "submodule add" fails if the path to the >> submodule repo is relative (i.e. starts with "../"). This currently fails >> with "remote (origin) does not have a url defined in .git/config". Maybe >> there's a reason to fail? If so, a better error message would be appreciated. > > I stumbled across this behavior now and then too, but according to the > commit it added (f31a522a2d) it is intended that adding a relative path > behaves differently than using an absolute path (it resolves relative to > the superproject's origin, not the filesystem, and to be able to do that > the superproject's .git/config has to have an url defined for it). But > you are right about the error message, it really isn't that helpful ... > >> Patch 2 exposes an anomaly in "submodule status", which reports that a >> submodule is OK even though it has deleted files. "git status" inside >> the submodule (and in the super-repo) both identify any deleted files, but >> "submodule status" doesn't prefix the submodule's HEAD SHA-ID with a "+". > > That is documented behavior. "git submodule status" only cares about the > commit recorded in the superproject vs the HEAD in the submodule, work > tree modifications are never shown by it. > > But try a "git status" in the superproject, that will give you the following > output: > # modified: init (modified content) I understand. My apologies for not reading the man page closely enough. I know there's been a lot of recent work on making "git status" submodule-friendly, but would there be any interest in having another prefix for submodule status to cover this case? Maybe ! could indicate that the submodule's HEAD is correct, but the working directory doesn't match it exactly. M.