Subject: Re: Bugreport - submodules are fetched twice in some cases

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 12:04:12 -0700

Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]> writes:

>> The +1 fetch is redundant, so it's probably good to get rid of it
>> anyway.

Another thing I noticed is that this +1 is *not* limited to "--all".
If you give a group that expands to multiple remotes, you'd take the
same fetch_multiple() code path (that is why the "single liner"
patch in the message I am responding to looks at the "is remote
set?", which is the same condition that decides if we use
fetch_one() or fetch_multiple()).

I also notice that there is a strange "optimzation" that is used
after expanding a group into one or more remotes and when it turns
out it was a group of one.  In such a case (and only in such a
case), we set "remote" and bypass the code path that uses &list.

I wonder if this "optimization" should be also used for "--all".

 builtin/fetch.c | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git c/builtin/fetch.c w/builtin/fetch.c
index e3791f09ed..9093455e81 100644
--- c/builtin/fetch.c
+++ w/builtin/fetch.c
@@ -2187,6 +2187,9 @@ int cmd_fetch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
 		else if (argc > 1)
 			die(_("fetch --all does not make sense with refspecs"));
 		(void) for_each_remote(get_one_remote_for_fetch, &list);
+		/* no point doing fetch_multiple() of one */
+		if (list.nr == 1)
+			remote = remote_get(list.items[0].string);
 	} else if (argc == 0) {
 		/* No arguments -- use default remote */
 		remote = remote_get(NULL);