On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:13 PM, W. Trevor King <wk...@tremily.us> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 01:29:12PM -0500, Phil Hord wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:54 PM, W. Trevor King <wk...@tremily.us> wrote: >> > [snip initial thoughts leading to the update --remote v5] >> >> I was thinking the same thing, but reading this whole thread a couple of >> weeks late. Thanks for noticing. >> >> Moreover, I think that 'git submodule update --pull' is also the wrong way >> to spell this action. Maybe you are misled from the outset by your >> current workflow: > > Did you see my v5 (add --remote) series?
Eventually, I did. Sorry for the out-of-order replies. >> For that reason, I don't like the --pull switch since it implies a >> fetch, but I will not always want to do a fetch. > > $ git submodule update --remote --no-fetch > > will not fetch the submodule remotes. This seems precisely backwards to me. Why not use $ git submodule update --remote --fetch to do your "default" behavior instead? I suppose I am arguing against the tide of the dominant workflow, but the fetch-by-default idea needlessly conflates two primitive operations: "float" and "fetch". >> I don't know which remote I should be tracking, though. I suppose >> it is 'origin' for now, but maybe it is just whatever >> $superproject's HEAD's remote-tracking branch indicates. > > With the --remote series, I always use "origin" because that's what > `submodule add` should be setting up. If people want to change that > up by hand, we may need a submodule.<name>.remote configuration > option. I've always felt that the "origin" defaults are broken and are simply being ignored because most users do not trip over them. But ISTR that submodule commands use the remote indicated by the superproject's current remote-tracking configuration, with a fallback to 'origin' if there is none. Sort of a "best effort" algorithm, I think. Am I remembering that wrong? >> I am not sure I want the gitlinks in superproject to update automatically >> in the index, but I definitely do not want to automatically create a commit >> for them. > > Commits are dissabled by default (see my recent --commit RFC for how > they would be enabled). > >> But I really don't want to figure out how to handle submodule >> collisions during a merge (or rebase!) of my superproject with changes that >> someone else auto-committed in his local $superproject as he and I >> arbitrarily floated up the upstream independently. There is nothing but >> loathing down that path. > > This is true. I'm not sure how gitlink collisions are currently > handled… They've always been trouble for me. But it may be that I am ignorant. Phil -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
