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=-4.0 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 52EAF208CD for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 16:50:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751578AbdHRQu5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:50:57 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:65515 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751060AbdHRQu4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:50:56 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E67DDAC6F6; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:50:48 -0400 (EDT) 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=RYsyZS6o02TOepoXK7kgAjH+woM=; b=mgJF++ zKaq18GQsyXH4BrD4WouwAx33DrC47cpPCRC4VY0nKKytLs4if0Ie+tjzB6ivHak wQAtFkRsCoYoDYjNBhnGbbd0orPdy+4F7X4REIIhuhlaagoB046/hCY/Clz7ocmj iBqX1/dUAeEaOBoij8DymYWg3GKWcwdM1sAKo= 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=PIyRxtTnf37jFLGlv2/aJAigyFtTZF+o KlvhgfXbXvKzpffS7kzurx+XenFnYcp0dcGrcnsSTiv89ZfzV2YxD91kdTGdTq4q wrxVY8x2GfVl/7O+TaUFp19Cn/Wi7aF14+re3rVrUAfTEuy8HIizysLzgUt58kPk T6OuGsiWTCg= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DECDBAC6F5; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:50:48 -0400 (EDT) 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 4F125AC6F3; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:50:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Stefan Beller Cc: Lars Schneider , Brandon Williams , "git\@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: Submodule regression in 2.14? References: <4283F0B0-BC1C-4ED1-8126-7E512D84484B@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 09:50:47 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Beller's message of "Thu, 17 Aug 2017 21:02:15 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 62C64634-8435-11E7-B27F-9D2B0D78B957-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Stefan Beller writes: > 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. Exactly. We are in agreement that recent developments seem to go against the traditional desire and it is understandable Lars sees this as a regression. I still do not have a strong opinion either way, if this is a regression or a progress. > 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. I am not sure if I follow. Submodules are not trees and one of the reasons people may want to separate things into different modules is so that they can treat them differently. If submodules allow you a richer set of operations than a tree that is part of a monolithic project, is that necessarily a bad thing?