From: "W. Trevor King" <[email protected]> To: Jens Lehmann <[email protected]>, Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> Cc: Phil Hord <[email protected]>, Git <[email protected]>, Heiko Voigt <[email protected]>, Jeff King <[email protected]>, Shawn Pearce <[email protected]>, Nahor <[email protected]> Bcc: Subject: Re: [RFC] remove/deprecate 'submodule init' and 'sync' Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> OpenPGP: id=39A2F3FA2AB17E5D8764F388FC29BDCDF15F5BE8; url=http://tremily.us/pubkey.txt
On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 09:29:29PM +0100, Jens Lehmann wrote: > Am 02.12.2012 20:09, schrieb W. Trevor King: > > Before I get into the details, I'd like to point out that I actually > > understand the purpose of `submodule init` now ;). To avoid further > > confusion, my current one-line command summaries would be: > > > > init: mark a submodule as active for future submodule operation > > deinit: mark a submodule as inactive for future submodule operation > > sync: update remote.<name>.origin in submodules to reflect changes > > in .gitmodules or the superproject's remote URL. > > > > I don't think we disagree on that, we just don't agree on how to > > implement it. > > Nope, it is already implemented and you are arguing to change the > current implementation. Agreed. > To quote from another mail: > > Am 01.12.2012 18:49, schrieb W. Trevor King: > > On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 06:25:17PM +0100, Jens Lehmann wrote: > >> What real world problems do we have with the current init/sync that > >> this approach would solve? > > > > I don't have any, ... > > We don't want to change working code and cause compatibility issues > just because we /could/ do things differently, no? In principle, yes, but in this case I think changing the implementation does not risk much in the way of compatibility issues (it only hurts users who rely on `submodule init` setting submodule.<name>.url for reasons of their own. A few of the existing tests explictly check the url setting, so perhaps there are a number of users who do require this side effect? I think this risk is outweighed by the benefits of having a clearer activation option. For example: On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 08:55:22PM +0100, Jens Lehmann wrote: > Sure. I was worried about throwing away other settings the user > might have set in the submodule.$name section and the first reflex > was to protect them. But thinking about that again I noticed we are > already throwing away a possibly user customized "url" setting, so > we already remove a possibly customized setting. With submodule.<name>.active, there's nothing customized that you'd have to nuke on deinit (except 'active' iteself, which the user is explicitly asking for). Cheers, Trevor -- 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
