On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Brandon Williams wrote:
> On 11/15, Stefan Beller wrote:
>> +
>> + child_process_clear(&cp);
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>
> If run command is successful then it handles the clearing of the child
> process struct, correct? Is there a negative to having all the ex
> -Original Message-
> From: Brandon Williams [mailto:bmw...@google.com]
> > +struct scheduled_submodules_update_type {
> > + const char *path;
> > + const struct object_id *oid;
> > + /*
> > +* Do we need to perform a complete checkout or just incremental
> > +* update?
> > +
On 11/15, Stefan Beller wrote:
> +static int update_submodule(const char *path, const struct object_id *oid,
> + int force, int is_new)
> +{
> + const char *git_dir;
> + struct child_process cp = CHILD_PROCESS_INIT;
> + const struct submodule *sub = submodule_fro
The walker of a tree is only expected to call `schedule_submodule_for_update`
and once done, to run `update_submodules`. This avoids directory/file
conflicts and later we can parallelize all submodule actions if needed.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller
---
submodule.c | 117 +
4 matches
Mail list logo
