From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 188DA20899 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 04:02:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750729AbdHRECR (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:02:17 -0400 Received: from mail-yw0-f174.google.com ([209.85.161.174]:35658 "EHLO mail-yw0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750705AbdHRECQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:02:16 -0400 Received: by mail-yw0-f174.google.com with SMTP id n83so24573878ywn.2 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 21:02:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ZUj4tGgp0YirPwN5lPROrQNQgycP+2tuCdP24VF7y5M=; b=nqBFwGhce4j5YOqtgTTAazM6KBths7Mm+zw2QBPFXSXv/PIxBVkCtwuIXNQgIJ/uG6 X6s9r+nK82o1fElpAqsVEvYW5uTDM8ON43a44eoLXVavP0Pe9plopU3w3j1vSQmaW0Uf XxhYAv6nqCHqDdXytVU14/LbH40NUUnx2rNVcvIv+3E1BYnntA7tFQKSoCI7LGtQElJR 412YSqzJan+JC26KIfRk2nFvy6vBZ8mqE6PmyP/zenR4XpRLTK/de5ILWryF2WdVd+rD CW4SUVsfagMjmBxkQihWkyRZn/aUu4Z+lHU/FhT6h+cD/wkywJJJqh3dGRvWDNDzj3CD HbdA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ZUj4tGgp0YirPwN5lPROrQNQgycP+2tuCdP24VF7y5M=; b=T9tLo5Z41B+iKfSr/tFFWVZTUMqXOE6l5yPWdoSEuY7N97uMtoEbhRK/qnbJ5Y9TeF qBw+hGIsZRPwCxY/tRU3ShsyZ2pUXqLQ8Wm+1Wu55S+ZgPpTuq1x6GT8sLX7ymRufhb0 Q96nXXe5rnUY0hodotv89/WHtMMqG/YRnrOo9OWWvKlbAmT/S7nJrXRwYkWXMmjTlw1v hJ81KXJ0j/KyX1OVUAFnuOO4w4G0hpYtak6SfEIO9DhXXFtcfnJRVT3J/sJIcDs+9NUR XU3KhooVJC80O8VT57UP1KMbsa1MqlSvSVW1ie7e7X/cOx+QnOgzycWRU4szGv2rHMwR 4zGA== X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5jhvZqp7DOtWX2eCKcl5FBIdZ+MF6azeZKX1O2xCClJRs2TUf96 CW3Hx80lEhvhe/MERfjaEbNnDxWHgxqdOc1ZWQ== X-Received: by 10.13.218.129 with SMTP id c123mr5898831ywe.175.1503028935887; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 21:02:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.56.142 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 21:02:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4283F0B0-BC1C-4ED1-8126-7E512D84484B@gmail.com> From: Stefan Beller Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 21:02:15 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Submodule regression in 2.14? To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Lars Schneider , Brandon Williams , "git@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Stefan Beller writes: > >> Are you saying this might be a design mistake and >> the .update ought to be respected by all the other >> commands? For example >> git reset --recurse-submodules >> should ignore the .update= none? > > I have been under the impression that that has been the traditional > desire of what .update ought to mean. I personally do not have a > strong opinion---at least not yet. In this context note v2.14.0-rc1-34-g7463e2ec3 (bw/submodule-config-cleanup~7, "unpack-trees: don't respect submodule.update") that is going opposite of your impression. >> When designing these new recursive submodule functionality >> outside the "submodule" command, I'd want submodules >> to behave as much as possible like trees. > > I think that is sensible as long as the user does not explicitly say > "this and that submodule behave differently" by giving configuration > variables. Perhaps .update is one of those that should countermand > the default behaviour of "--recurse-submodules"? Maybe, I'll think about it. However there is no such equivalent for trees (and AFAICT never came up) to treat a specific directory other than the rest in worktree operations. The problem with the issue in question is however: git-pull is a combination of two other high level commands (fetch/merge), the fetch component already had a recursive behavior, and that commit in question added a bit for the merge component, so the UX is hard to get right for both of them: git pull --recurse=fetch-only git pull --recurse=merge-respects-update-strategy is what I'd want to avoid. So maybe we can just respect the update strategy before starting the local part. Stefan