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=-4.1 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 DC3D7203F3 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 22:23:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754983AbdGXWXY (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Jul 2017 18:23:24 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:65466 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753015AbdGXWXX (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Jul 2017 18:23:23 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 754B294626; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 18:23:22 -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=72tEA5SJGao3+HoaWLIKrMrf5zk=; b=ES/vw7 tiwZXc9ZuBF73fGOwP3L60SF38JfjLXi0zNu6Wy5GPiVxwF4m+0vsDFUZJCHme0S q18eJ/IPb5ZFnRBzVMcfZx5CuQvDPojn7r663fuMHWaq2lU1P3tp/+XVrcI93wWe 85lbQVCXyLZXe9MptdsXKOFQUOAvZGNwoc67A= 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=n0wJnSXprZpj+/raH8/9lQarDXy0DXvB 5Xrm4v7rji/KvlnBOuX2t43jDJ4J6CkaDkDjhbeM3iXonsiVz5GVVgnODU5AlJzh Mru+L2KaI07UbzVS4F8rdQUDDzG4xBobZ4urkPlrD/78srPVp6KdJh2QuBYyn50x +upH746Ej2w= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6906594625; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 18:23:22 -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 CC5C494624; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 18:23:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jonathan Nieder Cc: Stefan Beller , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] recursive submodules: detach HEAD from new state References: <20170724173601.19921-1-sbeller@google.com> <20170724180312.GE13924@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com> Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 15:23:20 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:33:54 -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: B3AADEF0-70BE-11E7-9127-61520C78B957-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: > Also, while I do agree with you that the problem exists, it is > unclear why this patch is a solution and not a hack that sweeps a > problem under the rug. > > It is unclear why this "silently detach HEAD without telling the > user" is a better solution than erroring out, for example [*1*]. Just to avoid possible confusion; I am not claiming that it would be more (or less for that matter) sensible to error out than silently detaching HEAD, because I am not giving the reason to substantiate the claim and I do not have a strong opinion to favour which one (or another potential solution, if any). I am just saying that the patch that proposes a solution should be backed with an explanation why it is a good idea, especially when there are obvious alternatives that are not so clearly inferior. Thanks.