Re: [GSoC] My Git Dev Blog – Week 8

On 13-Jul-2021, at 13:48, Kaartic Sivaraam [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi Atharva,

On 11/07/21 4:48 pm, Atharva Raykar wrote:

quoted

Here's my weekly update:
https://atharvaraykar.me/gitnotes/week8
I am currently blocked by trying to pass a super-prefix parameter
to another command, when calling it from within C.

From the blog:

quoted

When queried by the get_super_prefix() function, the answer is (null).
This boggles my mind to no end (see update). The implementation is basically
the same getenv() call?

Good to see that you were able to identify the reason yourself.

quoted

I am not sure how to tell Git that the environment variable has in fact
been modified, and that it needs to be reinitialized. Maybe I am going
about this whole thing wrong?

I get the same feeling too. I took a brief look at how the issue could be
fixed and it seems to me that you exploring to set super-prefix might not
lead us to the solution. Alternatively, you could explore how other sub-commands
handle recursing into submodules. To me it looks like they handle it by spawning
a sub-process is likely the easiest approach for achieving recursion. That would
solve the super-prefix problem as you have observed.

Yes, I was hoping I would not have to spawn a subprocess for recursing on
update, and it does look theoretically possible--it would require changing
a lot of of existing code to use functions taking a repository objects
rather than assuming 'the_repository'. But since that was outside the scope
of my project, I did it like the other implementations that spawned a new
process for the recursion of 'update'.

Unfortunately, there's not yet proper support for handling recursion of submodules
which calls for working with the data of multiple Git repositories in the same
Git process. There was an effort[1] few years ago to make working with
other Git repositories simpler without having to spawn a sub-process. The state
of the effort is unclear to me. As far as I know, it has been stalled. I hope
others could provide more details about it.

So, you could try the approach of spawning of sub-process for now. In case there's
a better approach than spawning sub-process others might be able to point during
review. In the meanwhile, I'll try to take a better look later and see if I could
find anything.

I was seeing if it was possible to at least save another spawn for calling
init when '--init' is provided for an update. The current implementation
does not spawn a separate process for this, so I was hoping I don't add
more overhead in the conversion, but it's looking hard to avoid at the
moment.

[1]: https://public-inbox.org/git/20180205235508.216277-1-sbeller@google.com/

-- 
Sivaraam