From: René Scharfe
If we can't find a ref store for a submodule then assume it the latter
is not initialized (or was removed). Print a status line accordingly
instead of causing a segmentation fault by passing NULL as the first
parameter of refs_head_ref().
Reported-by: Jeremy Feusi
Signed-off
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 2:38 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:
> diff --git a/t/t7400-submodule-basic.sh b/t/t7400-submodule-basic.sh
> @@ -821,6 +821,18 @@ test_expect_success 'moving the superproject does not
> break submodules' '
> +test_expect_success 'moving the submodule does not break the superproj
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:57 AM, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 2:38 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:
>> diff --git a/t/t7400-submodule-basic.sh b/t/t7400-submodule-basic.sh
>> @@ -821,6 +821,18 @@ test_expect_success 'moving the superproject does not
>> break submodules' '
>> +test_exp
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:57 AM, Eric Sunshine
> wrote:
>>> +test_expect_success 'moving the submodule does not break the superproject'
>>> '
>>> + (
>>> + cd addtest2 &&
>>> +
>>> + mv repo repo.bak &&
>
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 1:21 PM, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> Or, even simpler:
>
> mv addtest2/repo addtest2/repo.bak &&
> test_when_finished "mv addtest2/repo.bak addtest2/repo" &&
> git -C addtest2 submodule status >actual &&
> grep -e "^-" -e repo actual
I like this!
Time permittin
Am 28.03.2018 um 22:21 schrieb Eric Sunshine:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:57 AM, Eric Sunshine
>> wrote:
+test_expect_success 'moving the submodule does not break the
superproject' '
+ (
+ cd addte
> This looks nicer here in the script, but doesn't test exactly what users
> type most of the time, I suppose.
>
> So how about this?
Looks good to me, though I had a nagging feeling at first that the
regex could be made more concise.
Why do we need the optional "[^ ]" inside \1 ?
> + sed -
Am 28.03.2018 um 23:37 schrieb Stefan Beller:
>> This looks nicer here in the script, but doesn't test exactly what users
>> type most of the time, I suppose.
>>
>> So how about this?
>
> Looks good to me, though I had a nagging feeling at first that the
> regex could be made more concise.
> Why d
Stefan Beller writes:
>> This looks nicer here in the script, but doesn't test exactly what users
>> type most of the time, I suppose.
>>
>> So how about this?
>
> Looks good to me, though I had a nagging feeling at first that the
> regex could be made more concise.
> Why do we need the optional
9 matches
Mail list logo