Message ID | 20221109004708.97668-1-chooglen@google.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | git: remove --super-prefix | expand |
On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 04:47:04PM -0800, Glen Choo wrote:
> *Note to maintainer*: See "Interactions with other series".
Thanks for the heads up ;-).
It looks like this series is broken, at least in my application of it.
On the first patch, running t7401, for example, I get:
BUG: builtin/submodule--helper.c:121: cannot have prefix 'sub/' and toplevel_cwd_prefix ''
Aborted
after running the first test (-x shows that it happens after running
'git submodule summary', unsurprisingly).
I pushed out the result of what I have to the 'gc/remove--super-prefix'
branch of git@github.com:ttaylorr/git.git. As you'll see, the base is
'master' (as of 319605f8f0 (The eleventh batch, 2022-11-08)) with a
--no-ff merge of 'ab/submodule-helper-prep-only'.
Let me know if I'm holding it wrong.
Thanks,
Taylor
Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 04:47:04PM -0800, Glen Choo wrote: >> *Note to maintainer*: See "Interactions with other series". > > Thanks for the heads up ;-). > > It looks like this series is broken, at least in my application of it. > On the first patch, running t7401, for example, I get: > > BUG: builtin/submodule--helper.c:121: cannot have prefix 'sub/' and toplevel_cwd_prefix '' > Aborted > > after running the first test (-x shows that it happens after running > 'git submodule summary', unsurprisingly). > > I pushed out the result of what I have to the 'gc/remove--super-prefix' > branch of git@github.com:ttaylorr/git.git. As you'll see, the base is > 'master' (as of 319605f8f0 (The eleventh batch, 2022-11-08)) with a > --no-ff merge of 'ab/submodule-helper-prep-only'. > > Let me know if I'm holding it wrong. No, the problem seems to be entirely on my end. (I could've sworn I sent this to CI..) Given that we have another competing RFC, it doesn't seem like a great use of time to reroll this just to unbreak "seen", but let me know if I'm missing somthing. > > Thanks, > Taylor
On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 03:55:39PM -0800, Glen Choo wrote: > > It looks like this series is broken, at least in my application of it. > > On the first patch, running t7401, for example, I get: > > > > BUG: builtin/submodule--helper.c:121: cannot have prefix 'sub/' and toplevel_cwd_prefix '' > > Aborted > > > > after running the first test (-x shows that it happens after running > > 'git submodule summary', unsurprisingly). > > > > I pushed out the result of what I have to the 'gc/remove--super-prefix' > > branch of git@github.com:ttaylorr/git.git. As you'll see, the base is > > 'master' (as of 319605f8f0 (The eleventh batch, 2022-11-08)) with a > > --no-ff merge of 'ab/submodule-helper-prep-only'. > > > > Let me know if I'm holding it wrong. > > No, the problem seems to be entirely on my end. (I could've sworn I sent > this to CI..) > > Given that we have another competing RFC, it doesn't seem like a great > use of time to reroll this just to unbreak "seen", but let me know if > I'm missing somthing. No problem. Let's drop this one for now, unless you have strong objections. Thanks, Taylor
Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 03:55:39PM -0800, Glen Choo wrote: >> > It looks like this series is broken, at least in my application of it. >> > On the first patch, running t7401, for example, I get: >> > >> > BUG: builtin/submodule--helper.c:121: cannot have prefix 'sub/' and toplevel_cwd_prefix '' >> > Aborted >> > >> > after running the first test (-x shows that it happens after running >> > 'git submodule summary', unsurprisingly). >> > >> > I pushed out the result of what I have to the 'gc/remove--super-prefix' >> > branch of git@github.com:ttaylorr/git.git. As you'll see, the base is >> > 'master' (as of 319605f8f0 (The eleventh batch, 2022-11-08)) with a >> > --no-ff merge of 'ab/submodule-helper-prep-only'. >> > >> > Let me know if I'm holding it wrong. >> >> No, the problem seems to be entirely on my end. (I could've sworn I sent >> this to CI..) >> >> Given that we have another competing RFC, it doesn't seem like a great >> use of time to reroll this just to unbreak "seen", but let me know if >> I'm missing somthing. > > No problem. Let's drop this one for now, unless you have strong > objections. Yes let's drop my RFC for now, thanks. > > Thanks, > Taylor