Stefan Beller wrote:
> Use is_submodule_populated_gently instead, which is simpler and
> cheaper.
[...]
> --- a/submodule.c
> +++ b/submodule.c
> @@ -966,7 +966,9 @@ static int push_submodule(const char *path,
> const struct string_list *push_options,
> int dry_run)
> {
> - if (add_submodule_odb(path))
> + int code;
> +
> + if (!is_submodule_populated_gently(path, &code))
> return 1;
Ah, I forgot about this detail. I don't think it should block this
patch (so my Reviewed-by still stands), but I wonder why this needs to
be gentle. add_submodule_odb is gentle so that is the conservative
thing to do, but that doesn't mean it is the *right* thing to do.
If this passed NULL instead of &code as the second argument, would
anything break?
Could there be a comment explaining what kind of error we are
expecting and why it is okay to continue when that error is
encountered without any error handling?
Thanks,
Jonathan
