Stefan Beller [off-list ref] writes:
When implementing the die() in 665b35ecc (2016-06-09, "submodule--helper:
initial clone learns retry logic"), I considered this condition to be
a severe condition, which should lead to an immediate abort as we do not
trust ourselves any more. However the queued messages in `err` are valuable
so let's not toss them out by immediately dieing, but a graceful return.
I think you'll be rerolling this series at least once (if only to
correct for 6/9), so perhaps split this fix into a preparatory fix
that can go earlier to 'next' and further that the remainder of the
series depend on?
quoted hunk
Another thing to note: The error message itself was missleading. A return
value of 0 doesn't indicate the passed in `ce` is not a submodule any more,
but just that we do not consider cloning it any more.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <redacted>
---
builtin/submodule--helper.c | 8 ++++++--
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/builtin/submodule--helper.c b/builtin/submodule--helper.c
index fc14843..3e40f99 100644
--- a/builtin/submodule--helper.c
+++ b/builtin/submodule--helper.c
@@ -815,8 +815,12 @@ static int update_clone_get_next_task(struct child_process *child,
if (index < suc->failed_clones_nr) {
int *p;
ce = suc->failed_clones[index];
- if (!prepare_to_clone_next_submodule(ce, child, suc, err))
- die("BUG: ce was a submodule before?");
+ if (!prepare_to_clone_next_submodule(ce, child, suc, err)) {
+ suc->current ++;
s/current /current/;
quoted hunk
+ strbuf_addf(err, "BUG: submodule considered for cloning,"
+ "doesn't need cloning any more?\n");
+ return 0;
+ }
p = xmalloc(sizeof(*p));
*p = suc->current;
*idx_task_cb = p;