On 26 Nov 2013, at 14:18, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > René Scharfe <l....@web.de> writes: > >> Thanks for the patches! Please send only one per message (the second >> one as a reply to the first one, or both as replies to a cover letter), >> though -- that makes commenting on them much easier. >> >> Side note: Documentation/SubmittingPatches doesn't mention that (yet), >> AFAICS. > > OK, how about doing this then? > > Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 7 ++++++- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > index 7055576..304b3c0 100644 > --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > @@ -140,7 +140,12 @@ comment on the changes you are submitting. It is > important for > a developer to be able to "quote" your changes, using standard > e-mail tools, so that they may comment on specific portions of > your code. For this reason, all patches should be submitted > -"inline". If your log message (including your name on the > +"inline". A patch series that consists of N commits is sent as N > +separate e-mail messages, or a cover letter message (see below) with > +N separate e-mail messages, each being a response to the cover > +letter. > + > +If your log message (including your name on the > Signed-off-by line) is not writable in ASCII, make sure that > you send off a message in the correct encoding. > > >>> The feature is disabled for remote repositories as >>> the git_work_tree fails. This is a possible future >>> enhancement. >> >> Hmm, curious. Why does it fail? I guess that happens with bare >> repositories, only, right? (Which are the most likely kind of remote >> repos to encounter, of course.) > > Yeah, I do not think of a reason why it should fail in a bare > repository, either. "git archive" is about writing out the contents > of an already recorded tree, so there shouldn't be a reason to even > call get_git_work_tree() in the first place. > See below for a discussion of why I use the .git file in the work tree to load the objects for the submodule. I also thought it should work in a remote repository - but I ran it on a properly initialized remote repository and it failed. Since I didn’t need it for my immediate use-case I just decided to disable it with an error. I can look into this further, but we must decide about the question below first…
> Even if the code is run inside a repository with a working tree, > when producing a tarball out of an ancient commit that had a > submodule not at its current location, --recurse-submodules option > should do the right thing, so asking for working tree location of > that submodule to find its repository is wrong, I think. It may > happen to find one if the archived revision is close enough to what > is currently checked out, but that may not necessarily be the case. > > At that point when the code discovers an S_ISGITLINK entry, it > should have both a pathname to the submodule relative to the > toplevel and the commit object name bound to that submodule > location. What it should do, when it does not find the repository > at the given path (maybe because there is no working tree, or the > sudmodule directory has moved over time) is roughly: > > - Read from .gitmodules at the top-level from the tree it is > creating the tarball out of; > > - Find "submodule.$name.path" entry that records that path to the > submodule; and then > > - Using that $name, find the stashed-away location of the submodule > repository in $GIT_DIR/modules/$name. > > or something like that. > > This is a related tangent, but when used in a repository that people > often use as their remote, the repository discovery may have to > interact with the relative URL. People often ship .gitmodules with > > [submodule "bar"] > URL = ../bar.git > path = barDir > > for a top-level project "foo" that can be cloned thusly: > > git clone git://site.xz/foo.git > > and host bar.git to be clonable with > > git clone git://site.xz/bar.git barDir/ > > inside the working tree of the foo project. In such a case, when > "archive --recurse-submodules" is running, it would find the > repository for the "bar" submodule at "../bar.git", I would think. > > So this part needs a bit more thought, I am afraid. I see that there is a lot of potential complexity around setting up a submodule: * The .gitmodules file can be dirty (easy to flag, but should we allow archive to proceed?) * Users can mess with settings both prior to git submodule init and before git submodule update. * What if it’s a raw clone and the user manually changes things between init and update? * I’m not a git-internals expert but looking through the code I see that you can add additional object directories and change paths as you show above. For those reasons I deliberately decided not to reproduce the above logic all by myself. On the other hand, what it *did* seem to me is that once you have the .git file then you know you’ve got all that covered. So I just used that. This restricts the function to working only on a properly setup repository - but that is my use case! If you think that doing this more extensive setup is even *viable* given the space between init and update then I”m happy to try it. I didn’t want to start off on a fools errand. > >>> 'git archive' [--format=<fmt>] [--list] [--prefix=<prefix>/] [<extra>] >>> [-o <file> | --output=<file>] [--worktree-attributes] >>> + [--recursive|--recurse-submodules] >> >> I'd expect git archive --recurse to add subdirectories and their >> contents, which it does right now, and --no-recurse to only archive the >> specified objects, which is not implemented. IAW: I wouldn't normally >> associate an option with that name with submodules. Would >> --recurse-submodules alone suffice? > > Jens already commented on this, and I agree that --recursive should > be dropped from this patch. I only put —recursive because that is what git-clone has for it’s behaviour wrt submodules. If that flag is deprecated then I’m fine with using only —recurse-submodules Perhaps a deprecation flag or note in the code would help? Overall I’m impressed by the speed and quality of the responses (and the codebase!) so am glad to move this forward. I look forward to your feedback. Kind Regards Nick -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
