[I've reviewed up-to and including 13; I'll look at 14-16 tomorrow-ish]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Beller [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 6:07 PM
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; David Turner; Stefan Beller
> Subject: [PATCH 13/16] submodule: teach unpack_trees() to update
> submodules
...
> msgs[ERROR_NOT_UPTODATE_DIR] =
> _("Updating the following directories would lose untracked
> files in it:\n%s");
> + msgs[ERROR_NOT_UPTODATE_SUBMODULE] =
> + _("Updating the following submodules would lose modifications
> in
> +it:\n%s");
s/it/them/
> if (!strcmp(cmd, "checkout"))
> msg = advice_commit_before_merge
> @@ -1315,19 +1320,18 @@ static int verify_uptodate_1(const struct
> cache_entry *ce,
> return 0;
>
> if (!lstat(ce->name, &st)) {
> - int flags =
> CE_MATCH_IGNORE_VALID|CE_MATCH_IGNORE_SKIP_WORKTREE;
> - unsigned changed = ie_match_stat(o->src_index, ce, &st,
> flags);
> - if (!changed)
> - return 0;
> - /*
> - * NEEDSWORK: the current default policy is to allow
> - * submodule to be out of sync wrt the superproject
> - * index. This needs to be tightened later for
> - * submodules that are marked to be automatically
> - * checked out.
> - */
> - if (S_ISGITLINK(ce->ce_mode))
> - return 0;
> + if (!S_ISGITLINK(ce->ce_mode)) {
I generally prefer to avoid if (!x) { A } else { B } -- I would rather just see
if (x) { B } else { A }.
> + if (!changed) {
> + /* old is always a submodule */
> + if (S_ISGITLINK(new->ce_mode)) {
> + /*
> + * new is also a submodule, so check if we care
> + * and then if can checkout the new sha1 safely
> + */
> + if (submodule_is_interesting(old->name,
> null_sha1)
> + && is_submodule_checkout_safe(new->name,
> &new-
> >oid))
> + return 0;
> + } else {
> + /*
> + * new is not a submodule any more, so only
> + * care if we care:
> + */
> + if (submodule_is_interesting(old->name,
> null_sha1)
> + && ok_to_remove_submodule(old->name))
> + return 0;
> + }
Do we need a return 1 in here somewhere? Because otherwise, we fall through
and return 0 later.
