On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 07:54:39PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> Ping.. any idea how to go from here..
I'm sorry, I happen to have little time since the last
conversation.
As far as I understand, my patches are correct about
handling existing submodules, but they may be not enough
regarding _initial
Am 03.11.2014 um 13:54 schrieb Duy Nguyen:
Ping.. any idea how to go from here..
I didn't dig deep enough into the multiple worktrees topic to
know what "$MAIN_REPO/.git/worktrees/$WORKTREE/modules/$SUB"
might mean, but a submodule whose repo lives under
.git/modules/$SUBMODULE_NAME should have
Ping.. any idea how to go from here..
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Max Kirillov wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 09:30:15PM +0200, Jens Lehmann wrote:
>> Am 16.10.2014 um 22:54 schrieb Max Kirillov:
>>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 08:57:20PM +0200, Jens Lehmann wrote:
Am 15.10.2014 um 00:15
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 09:30:15PM +0200, Jens Lehmann wrote:
> Am 16.10.2014 um 22:54 schrieb Max Kirillov:
>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 08:57:20PM +0200, Jens Lehmann wrote:
>>> Am 15.10.2014 um 00:15 schrieb Max Kirillov:
I think the logic can be simple: it a submodule is not
checked-out
Am 17.10.2014 um 11:14 schrieb Duy Nguyen:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Hmph. I was hoping that the multiple-work-trees topic was ready for
'next' by now, but we may want to wait to see how the interaction
with submodule plays out to have another chance of a clean re
Am 16.10.2014 um 22:54 schrieb Max Kirillov:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 08:57:20PM +0200, Jens Lehmann wrote:
Am 15.10.2014 um 00:15 schrieb Max Kirillov:
I think the logic can be simple: it a submodule is not
checked-out in the repository "checkout --to" is called
from, then it is not checked-out
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Hmph. I was hoping that the multiple-work-trees topic was ready for
> 'next' by now, but we may want to wait to see how the interaction
> with submodule plays out to have another chance of a clean reroll
> before it happens. This is a top
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 08:57:20PM +0200, Jens Lehmann wrote:
> Am 15.10.2014 um 00:15 schrieb Max Kirillov:
>> I think the logic can be simple: it a submodule is not
>> checked-out in the repository "checkout --to" is called
>> from, then it is not checked-out to the new one also. If it
>> is, the
Am 15.10.2014 um 00:15 schrieb Max Kirillov:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:51:22PM +0200, Jens Lehmann wrote:
Am 14.10.2014 um 20:34 schrieb Max Kirillov:
But here are a lot of nuances. For example, it makes
sense to have a superproject checkout without submodules
being initialized (so that they d
Duy Nguyen writes:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Max Kirillov wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 07:09:45PM +0200, Jens Lehmann wrote:
>>> Until that problem is solved it looks wrong to pass
>>> GIT_COMMON_DIR into submodule recursion, I believe
>>> GIT_COMMON_DIR should be added to the loca
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:15 AM, Max Kirillov wrote:
>> Hmm, so I tend towards adding GIT_COMMON_DIR to
>> local_repo_env until we figured out how to handle this.
>> Without that I fear bad things will happen, at least for a
>> superproject with multiple checkout-to work trees where
>> the same su
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Max Kirillov wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 07:09:45PM +0200, Jens Lehmann wrote:
>> Until that problem is solved it looks wrong to pass
>> GIT_COMMON_DIR into submodule recursion, I believe
>> GIT_COMMON_DIR should be added to the local_repo_env array
>> (and ev
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:51:22PM +0200, Jens Lehmann wrote:
> Am 14.10.2014 um 20:34 schrieb Max Kirillov:
>> But here are a lot of nuances. For example, it makes
>> sense to have a superproject checkout without submodules
>> being initialized (so that they don't waste space and
>> machine time f
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 07:09:45PM +0200, Jens Lehmann wrote:
> Until that problem is solved it looks wrong to pass
> GIT_COMMON_DIR into submodule recursion, I believe
> GIT_COMMON_DIR should be added to the local_repo_env array
> (and even if it is passed on later, we might have to
> append "/mod
Am 14.10.2014 um 20:34 schrieb Max Kirillov:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:26:42AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
And multiple-worktree _is_ about keeping the same repository and
history data (i.e. object database, refs, rerere database, reflogs for
refs/*) only once, while allowing multiple working
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:26:42AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> And multiple-worktree _is_ about keeping the same repository and
> history data (i.e. object database, refs, rerere database, reflogs for
> refs/*) only once, while allowing multiple working trees attached to
> that single copy.
>
>
Jens Lehmann writes:
> But I can't see how that can work by just sharing the modules directory
> tree, as that contains work tree related files - e.g. the index - for
> each submodule. AFAICS sharing them between work trees will work only
> if the content of the modules directory is partly presen
Am 14.10.2014 um 14:17 schrieb Duy Nguyen:
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Max Kirillov wrote:
These are fixes of issues with submodules with use of multiple working
trees.
I think the patches look fine from the nd/multiple-work-trees writer's
perspective. I know too little about submodules
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Max Kirillov wrote:
> These are fixes of issues with submodules with use of multiple working
> trees.
I think the patches look fine from the nd/multiple-work-trees writer's
perspective. I know too little about submodules to judge if this is
the right way and not
Hi.
These are fixes of issues with submodules with use of multiple working
trees.
To be applied on top of the $gmane/257559, (6b4ce012cb in current pu).
Max Kirillov (4):
checkout: do not fail if target is an empty directory
submodule refactor: use git_path_submodule() in add_submodule_odb()
20 matches
Mail list logo
