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=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham 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 6B0AD20A10 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2017 02:01:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754187AbdKGCBA (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:01:00 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:61966 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751728AbdKGCA7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:00:59 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E184AA5D13; Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:00:58 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=Kj/xUbFbq9JVonDI7AQmZm4X318=; b=eiZ89D qiI60pDxldnGDAbvTXrMPYGkFZKDq5Fp7lyt/kNi5KKmFkPPMuRQlY7IyDHrqQBw K9zP44+DRSOtg2i53hQZlXT3R+UOcktKR6iLCOtBz/j+MPfFqZ8MdY6ovlI6mEVa nw1GArxnRZVATy2aCDvKN0AOElXvkcRHgSRaY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=JPL55TH9P91eDcC20GvM7vNpNdIp6yuc wmbxjDKrV7oaeGvFso6oOvmgkSFawB7cFzc6HOt7yZgsc/gfDodu2f91nCOeO012 aS8UE+wDtQ03okPwgW+uZBFwIx7Uc7U5scOo+CQJOA18DdtskuKgD9U7lXpg2KJM nrktFZnhOVo= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8B08A5D12; Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:00:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 44D9CA5D0E; Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:00:58 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Stefan Beller Cc: git Subject: sb/submodule-recursive-checkout-detach-head References: Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 11:00:57 +0900 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Beller's message of "Fri, 27 Oct 2017 11:50:49 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 7F4A69DE-C35F-11E7-8E72-575F0C78B957-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Stefan Beller writes: >> * sb/submodule-recursive-checkout-detach-head (2017-07-28) 2 commits >> (merged to 'next' on 2017-10-26 at 30994b4c76) >> + Documentation/checkout: clarify submodule HEADs to be detached >> + recursive submodules: detach HEAD from new state >> >> "git checkout --recursive" may overwrite and rewind the history of >> the branch that happens to be checked out in submodule >> repositories, which might not be desirable. Detach the HEAD but >> still allow the recursive checkout to succeed in such a case. >> >> Undecided. >> This needs justification in a larger picture; it is unclear why >> this is better than rejecting recursive checkout, for example. > ... > Detaching the submodule HEAD is in line with the current thinking > of submodules, though I am about to send out a plan later > asking if we want to keep it that way long term. Did this "send out a plan" ever happen? I am about to rewind 'next' and rebuild on top of v2.15, and wondering if I should keep the topic or kick it back to 'pu' so that a better justification can be given.