On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> writes: > >> So you propose to make git-add behave like "git submodule add" >> (i.e. also add the .gitmodules entry for name/path/URL), which I >> like from a submodule perspective. >> >> However other users of gitlinks might be confused[1], which is why >> I refrained from "making every gitlink into a submodule". Specifically >> the more powerful a submodule operation is (the more fluff adds), >> the harder it should be for people to mis-use it. > > A few questions that come to mind are: > > - Does "git add sub/" have enough information to populate > .gitmodules? If we have reasonable "default" values for > .gitmodules entries (e.g. missing URL means we won't fetch when > asked to go recursively fetch), perhaps we can leave everything > other than "submodule.$name.path" undefined.
I think we would want to populate path and URL only. > > - Can't we help those who have gitlinks without .gitmodules entries > exactly the same way as above, i.e. when we see a gitlink and try > to treat it as a submodule, we'd first try to look it up from > .gitmodules (by going from path to name and then to > submodule.$name.$var); the above "'git add sub/' would add an > entry for .gitmodules" wish is based on the assumption that there > are reasonable "default" values for each of these $var--so by > basing on the same assumption, we can "pretend" as if these > submodule.$name.$var were in .gitmodules file when we see > gitlinks without .gitmodules entries. IOW, if "git add sub/" can > add .gitmodules to help people without having to type "git > submodule add sub/", then we can give exactly the same degree of > help without even modifying .gitmodules when "git add sub/" is > run. I do not understand the gist of this paragraph, other then: "When git-add <repository> encounters a section submodule.<name>.*, do not modify it; We can assume it is sane already." > - Even if we could solve it with "git add sub/" that adds to > .gitmodules, is it a good solution, when we can solve the same > thing without having to do so? I am confused even more. So you suggest that "git add [--gitlink=submodule]" taking on the responsibilities of "git submodule add" is a bad idea? I thought we had the same transition from "git remote update" to "git fetch", which eventually superseded the former.
