On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:36:44PM +0200, Jens Lehmann wrote: > Except recording the branch name might raise expectations about what git > will do with it. And as far as this patch goes, git won't do anything > with it (yet).
As Phil pointed out, doing anything with this variable is ambiguous: On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 06:03:53PM -0400, Phil Hord wrote: > Some projects now use the 'branch' config value to record the tracking > branch for the submodule. Some ascribe different meaning to the > configuration if the value is given vs. undefined. For example, see > the Gerrit submodule-subscription mechanism. This change will cause > those workflows to behave differently than they do now. On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:36:44PM +0200, Jens Lehmann wrote: > But I'd rather see a patch series properly implementing the always-tip > mode Ævar mentions in f030c96d86 (and which is requested by some users), > especially the interesting parts: What should git record as commit in > that case and how are "git status" and "git diff" going to handle > submodules which shall follow a specific branch. I assume "git submodule > update" is the right point in time to fetch that branch again and check > out a newer branch tip if necessary, but should that commit be added to > the superproject for that submodule automagically or not? This patch > falls short of this, as it does the easy part but not the interesting > ones ;-) I agree that I'm not working on always-tip. I'm just making that easier. For people that aren't interested in always-tip submodules (e.g. Gerrit folks), this patch is still useful. It would certainly be possible to build an always-tip implementation on top of submodule.$name.branch (as Ævar's one-liner does), but that would be another patch series. Personally, I think truly updates should be made explicitly, with a hand written commit message about why the updates are occuring. I also think that setting up and running auto-updates should be easy one-liners, not long, complicated ones ;). -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
