Re: [RFC] require-work-tree wants more than what its name says
From: Sverre Rabbelier <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:51:09
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [RFC] require-work-tree wants more than what its name says · Junio C Hamano <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · [RFC] require-work-tree wants more than what its name says · Junio C Hamano <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [RFC] require-work-tree wants more than what its name says · Jeff King <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [RFC] require-work-tree wants more than what its name says · Michael J Gruber <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [RFC] require-work-tree wants more than what its name says · Jeff King <hidden>
Heya, On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 04:11, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
- I am not sure if git-submodule.sh correctly works with the "as long as there is a working tree somewhere, it is OK" semantics. It may have to stay "require_work_tree" to ensure that the $cwd is within the working tree.
So do we need more tests for git-submodule to find out, or is this a hint to the submodule people to chime in? If so, should they be cc-ed? -- Cheers, Sverre Rabbelier