Hi,
Stefan Beller wrote:
> This patch tightens the check upfront, such that we do not need
> to spawn a child process to find out if the submodule is broken.
Sounds sensible.
[...]
> --- a/submodule.c
> +++ b/submodule.c
[...]
> @@ -1319,10 +1338,23 @@ static int get_next_submodule(struct child
> We used to recurse into submodules, even if they were broken having
> only an objects directory. The child process executed in the submodule
> would fail though if the submodule was broken. This is tested via
> "fetching submodule into a broken repository" in t5526.
>
> This patch tightens the c
We used to recurse into submodules, even if they were broken having
only an objects directory. The child process executed in the submodule
would fail though if the submodule was broken. This is tested via
"fetching submodule into a broken repository" in t5526.
This patch tightens the check upfront
3 matches
Mail list logo