From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Lehmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/9] submodule: improve robustness of path handling Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 21:21:18 +0200 Message-ID: <4FC521AE.1010707@web.de> References: <1338132851-23497-1-git-send-email-jon.seymour@gmail.com> <4FC3DAEF.1070508@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com, phil.hord@gmail.com, Ramsay Jones , Johannes Sixt To: Jon Seymour X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue May 29 21:22:02 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SZRzV-00011k-VA for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 29 May 2012 21:22:02 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755174Ab2E2TV6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2012 15:21:58 -0400 Received: from fmmailgate03.web.de ([217.72.192.234]:59397 "EHLO fmmailgate03.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755168Ab2E2TV5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2012 15:21:57 -0400 Received: from moweb002.kundenserver.de (moweb002.kundenserver.de [172.19.20.108]) by fmmailgate03.web.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CB8E1B53C234 for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 21:21:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.178.48] ([79.193.81.60]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb002) with ESMTPA (Nemesis) id 0McFgl-1SH6Jf2TSR-00JdID; Tue, 29 May 2012 21:21:25 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 In-Reply-To: X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:ZY9fz5CeOknflNHCZqg2EjstGeOSpwsRh8jD7arXpFi 77cVYwTezaujSqAq2G9Y66wKvZaeqYEp9UZm1rKKl5k18yTAFj 1iQYlqJ/wOUqr90JscTGsnccYxVbuxm3AUIwOT08S2FPJ45nk/ a3PXkzhcNynYWC8GipRaqe1dWAwD/AHmr+3cmALEQ3B1j111HU Z4OmhGUAVFURDCdr2Hh7w== Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Am 29.05.2012 00:01, schrieb Jon Seymour: > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Jens Lehmann wrote: >> So I'd vote for just fixing the relative submodule path issues and to >> not care about the possible issues with URLs. Opinions? > > I'll write a minimal patch to solve my relative path problem without > fixing the invalid/"greedy" submodule url or url normalization issues. I'd really appreciate that. > Do you have any comments about whether the failures documented in 2/9 > and 4/9 are worth noting, at least, as weaknesses? Sure, they document known problems. Me thinks they all should be squashed into a single patch and submitted separately. The following three tests from 2/9 are redundant and can be dropped (they are already handled by the '../../subrepo' case): '../../../subrepo fails with URL - ssh://hostname/repo' " '../../../../subrepo fails with with URL - ssh://hostname/repo' " '../../../../../subrepo fails with URL - ssh://hostname/repo' " >> (And patches 6-8 contain changes to test cases other than just changing >> test_expect_failure to test_expect_success which makes reviewing this >> series unnecessarily hard) > > Agree absolutely about patch 8 - I will re-roll with separate tests to > document the test setup issue I fixed in 8. > > The only other changes to tests in 6 and 7 were the removal of > comments about the actual bad behaviour. Would your preference be that > I removed these #actual comments completely or that I moved > documentation of the actual behaviour to the header of the test? I'd prefer just to see the failure => success changes, so the comments look superfluous to me and should be dropped from the failure case.