Re: Submodule regression in 2.14?

[Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com>]

> On 18 Aug 2017, at 19:16, Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:
> 
>> In the past "submodule.<name>.update=none" was an easy way
>> to selectively disable certain Submodules.
>> 
>> How would I do this with Git 2.14?
> 
>    submodule.<name>.active = false

That's what I thought after your first response. However,
this test case fails for me, too:


diff --git a/t/t7400-submodule-basic.sh b/t/t7400-submodule-basic.sh
index dcac364c5f..24f9729015 100755
--- a/t/t7400-submodule-basic.sh
+++ b/t/t7400-submodule-basic.sh
@@ -1289,4 +1289,19 @@ test_expect_success 'init properly sets the config' '
	test_must_fail git -C multisuper_clone config --get submodule.sub1.active
'

+test_expect_success 'submodule update and git pull with disabled submodule' '
+	test_when_finished "rm -rf multisuper_clone" &&
+	pwd=$(pwd) &&
+	git clone file://"$pwd"/multisuper multisuper_clone &&
+	(
+		cd multisuper_clone &&
+		git config --local submodule.sub0.update none &&
+		git config --local submodule.sub0.active false &&
+		git submodule update --init --recursive &&
+		git pull --recurse-submodules &&
+		git submodule status | cut -c 1,43- >actual
+	) &&
+	ls &&
+	test_cmp expect multisuper_clone/actual
+'
+
test_done


Here is the relevant part of the Git config:

	[submodule "sub0"]
		update = none
		active = false

Is this a bug?


>> My gut feeling is that all commands should respect the
>> "submodule.<name>.update=none" setting.
> 
> Well my gut feeling was that the "update" part of the name
> reponds to the subcommand, not the generic action.

I see. But wouldn't that be inconsistent with the config
"active" then? Following that logic "active" would only
respond to the (non-existent) "active" subcommand, no?


> For example when you set update=none, git-status,
> recursive git-diff still reported the submodule.

My understanding is this:

(1) "active" controls if a submodule is considered by
    Git at all.

(2) "update" controls how and if the submodule pointer
    modified

Is this your intention? What would be the use case for
"active=true" and "update=none"? 


- Lars