> In push_submodule(), because we do not actually need access to objects > in the submodule, do not invoke add_submodule_odb(). > (for_each_remote_ref_submodule() does not require access to those > objects, and the actual push is done by spawning another process, > which handles object access by itself.)
The code looks good - my analysis is the same as that in my review of the previous version [1]. Can you mention, in the commit message, the tests that exercise the functionality here (and say that they still pass)? [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/20181011230028.200488-1-jonathanta...@google.com/ > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> > --- > submodule.c | 3 --- > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/submodule.c b/submodule.c > index 7305ae2e10..e623e6bf7f 100644 > --- a/submodule.c > +++ b/submodule.c > @@ -1024,9 +1024,6 @@ static int push_submodule(const char *path, > const struct string_list *push_options, > int dry_run) > { > - if (add_submodule_odb(path)) > - return 1; > - > if (for_each_remote_ref_submodule(path, has_remote, NULL) > 0) { > struct child_process cp = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT; > argv_array_push(&cp.args, "push"); > -- > 2.19.0 >
