On 05/08, Randall S. Becker wrote: > On May 8, 2017 12:55 PM, Stefan Beller wrote: > >On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Randall S. Becker <rsbec...@nexbridge.com> > >wrote: > >> On May 8, 2017 12:25 PM, Stefan Beller wrote: > >>>On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Randall S. Becker <rsbec...@nexbridge.com> > >>>wrote: > >>>> On May 6, 2017 4:38 AM Ciro Santilli wrote: > >>>>> This is a must if you are working with submodules, otherwise every > >>>>> git checkout requires a git submodule update, and you forget it, > >>>>> and things break, and you understand, and you go to stack overflow > >>>>> questions > >>>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/22328053/why-doesnt-git-checkout > >>>>> -a utomatically-do-git-submodule-update-recursive > >>>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4611512/is-there-a-way-to-make-g > >>>>> it -pull-automatically-update-submodules > >>>>> and you give up and create aliases :-) > >> > >>> The upcoming release (2.13) will have "git checkout > >>> --recurse-submodules", which will checkout the submodules at the commit > >>> as recorded in the superproject. > >>> I plan to add an option "submodule.recurse" (name is subject to > >>> bikeshedding), which would make the --recurse-submodules flag given > >>> by default for all commands that support the flag. (Currently cooking we > >>> have reset --recurse-submodules, already existing there is push/pull). > >> > >> Brilliant! 😊 > >> > >>>> I rather like the concept of supporting --recurse-submodules. The > >>>> complexity is that the branches in all submodules all have to have > >>>> compatible >>>semantics when doing the checkout, which is by no means > >>>> guaranteed. In the scenario where you are including a submodule from a > >>>> third-party (very >>>common - see gnulib), the branches likely won't be > >>>> there, so you have a high probability of having the command fail or > >>>> produce the same results as >>>currently exists if you allow the > >>>> checkout even with problems (another option?). If you have control of > >>>> everything, then this makes sense. > >> > >>>I am trying to give the use case of having control over everything (or > >>>rather mixed) more thought as well, e.g. "checkout --recurse-submodules -b > >>>>><name>" may want to create the branches in a subset of submodules as > >>>well. > >> > >> I have to admit that I just assumed it would have to work that way > >> this would not be particularly useful. However, in thinking about it, > >> we might want to limit the depth of how far -b <name> takes effect. If > >> the super module brings in submodules entirely within control of the > >> development group, having -b <name> apply down to leaf submodules > >> makes sense (in some policies). However, if some submodules span out > >> to, say, gnulib, that might not make particular sense. Some downward > >> limit might be appropriate. Perhaps, in the submodule ref, you might > >> want to qualify it as <commit>:<ref> (but the impact of that is > >> probably and admittedly pretty horrid). I hesitate to suggest a > >> numeric limit, as that assumes that submodules are organized in a > >> balanced tree - which is axiomatically unreasonable. Maybe something > >> in .git/config, like > >> > >> [branch "topic*"] > >> submodules=a,b,c > >> > >> But I suspect that would make things even more confusing. > > >I thought about having yet-another-flag in the .gitmodules file, which > >states if the submodule is extern or internal. > > >[submodule "gnulib"] > > path=./gnulib > > external = true # implies no branch for checkout -b --recurse-submodules > > >I think there are a couple more situations where such "external" submodules > >are treated differently, so maybe we'd want to think carefully about the > >>actual name as different workflows would want to have different features > >for an internal/external submodule. > > I didn't want to open up that one, but yes. That makes sense. However, I > don't like overloading what "external" means or might mean in the future. > Would you consider a distinct Boolean for that, like inherit-branch=true?
Something like that kind of already exists. The 'branch' field. Internal repos would most likely use the '.' value to indicate that the submodules should track the superproject's branch. While a value of say 'foo' would indicate that the submodule should always be on branch 'foo'; this could be used for external repositories. > > Cheers, > Randall > -- Brandon Williams
