From: Jens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@web.de>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk>
Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (May 2013, #09; Wed, 29)
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 21:23:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51A7A73C.6070103@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7va9ndqqyf.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Am 30.05.2013 01:58, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> * jk/submodule-subdirectory-ok (2013-04-24) 3 commits
> (merged to 'next' on 2013-04-24 at 6306b29)
> + submodule: fix quoting in relative_path()
> (merged to 'next' on 2013-04-22 at f211e25)
> + submodule: drop the top-level requirement
> + rev-parse: add --prefix option
>
> Allow various subcommands of "git submodule" to be run not from the
> top of the working tree of the superproject.
The summary and status commands are looking good in this version
(they are now showing the submodule directory paths relative to
the current directory). Apart from that my other remarks from
gmane $221575 still seem to apply. And this series has only tests
for status, summary and add (and that just with an absolute URL),
I'd rather like to see a test for each submodule command (and a
relative add to) to document the desired behavior.
But I'm not sure if it's better to have another iteration of this
series or to address the open issues a follow-up series. Having
status, summary and add - at least with absolute URLs - lose the
toplevel requirement is already a huge improvement IMO. Opinions?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-05-30 19:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-05-29 23:58 What's cooking in git.git (May 2013, #09; Wed, 29) Junio C Hamano
2013-05-30 9:47 ` Thomas Rast
2013-05-30 9:56 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2013-06-02 23:44 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-05-30 19:18 ` Jens Lehmann
2013-06-02 18:50 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-06-03 21:27 ` Jens Lehmann
2013-07-01 22:05 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-05-30 19:23 ` Jens Lehmann [this message]
2013-05-31 19:40 ` John Keeping
2013-06-03 14:54 ` John Keeping
2013-06-03 15:30 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-06-03 21:47 ` Jens Lehmann
2013-06-03 22:23 ` John Keeping
2013-06-04 5:29 ` Heiko Voigt
2013-06-04 8:10 ` John Keeping
2013-06-04 11:17 ` Heiko Voigt
2013-06-04 12:48 ` John Keeping
2013-06-04 21:39 ` Jens Lehmann
2013-06-04 22:04 ` John Keeping
2013-06-04 22:57 ` Re: " Phil Hord
2013-06-05 8:19 ` John Keeping
2013-05-31 6:16 ` Øystein Walle
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=51A7A73C.6070103@web.de \
--to=jens.lehmann@web.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=john@keeping.me.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).