Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> writes: > Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Shouldn't this done as part of 4/7 where is_submodule_modified() >> starts reading from the porcelain v2 output? 4/7 does adjust for >> the change from double question mark (porcelain v1) to a single one >> for untracked, but at the same time it needs to prepare for these >> 'u' (unmerged), '1' (normal modification) and '2' (mods with rename) >> to appear in the output, no? >> >> IOW, with 4/7 and 7/7 done as separate steps, isn't the system >> broken between these steps? > > No. Both before and after patch 4, this code has to determine two > details from a submodule: > ... > Question (3) didn't come up before because when there are no nested > submodules, the diff machinery answers it (saving us from getting the > answer from the status --porcelain we recurse to).
Thanks.
