On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 04:11:59PM -0500, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 09:29:29PM +0100, Jens Lehmann wrote:
> > 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 anyone interested in an implementation of my
submodule.<name>.active proposal, I've posted an initial version:

  git://github.com/wking/git.git wtk/submodule.name.active

I can re-post it here as a PATCH series, but I don't think we're at
the level of patch-specific feedback yet.

I'm currently pretty happy with it except for the last commit:

  HACK work around missing index entry for existing empty submodules

To solve that cleanly, I'd need a solution to the commit-less existing
repository problem which I mentioned earlier:

On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 11:54:04AM -0500, W. Trevor King wrote:
> I'm currently stuck with adding a commit-less existing repository as a
> submodule (which happens in t7400-submodule-basic.sh, ../bar/a/b/c
> works with relative local path):
> 
>   $ mkdir -p super/sub
>   $ cd super
>   $ git init
>   $ (cd sub && git init)
>   $ git submodule add ./ sub
>   $ git status
>   # On branch master
>   #
>   # Initial commit
>   #
>   # Changes to be committed:
>   #   (use "git rm --cached <file>..." to unstage)
>   #
>   #       new file:   .gitmodules
>   #
> 
> What I'm missing is a gitlink form sub for 'Subproject commit
> 00000...' or some such.  When the subproject has an actual commit,
> things work as expected:
> 
>   $ mkdir -p super/sub
>   $ cd super
>   $ git init
>   $ (cd sub && git init && echo line-1 > file && git add file && git commit -m file)
>   $ git submodule add ./ sub
>   $ git status
>   # On branch master
>   #
>   # Initial commit
>   #
>   # Changes to be committed:
>   #   (use "git rm --cached <file>..." to unstage)
>   #
>   #       new file:   .gitmodules
>   #       new file:   sub
>   #
> 
> This means that module_list isn't aware of the empty submodule, when
> the user has just explicitly added it.  Fixing this would seem to need
> either 'Subproject commit 00000...' as I suggested earlier, or an
> adjustment to module_list that also spits out submodules that are in
> .gitmodules but not in the index.

Other than that, I think all the changes in the test suite are
logically sound and unlikely to cause problems with existing usage.

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