On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:19:42PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > > On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > >> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > >> > >> > Yes. Note, though, that the problems of enhancing git-submodule are > >> > not technical, as we can learn from the recent history, including the > >> > lack of support for rebasing submodules (there _were_ patches!). > >> > >> Sorry I don't recall. Were they of 'next' quality? How well were they > >> reviewed? > > > > Obviously not, otherwise you would have applied them, no? > > > > OTOH I found the technical details rather trivial, so maybe they were > > 'next' quality, but there was another reason you did not apply them. > > Well, I spent some time digging the mail archive myself. I think you were > talking about this thread: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/116918 > > If this is not the thread you were talking about, please discard/disregard > the remainder of this message, and give me a better pointer instead. > > The thread ends with you asking me: > > Junio, how about it? post 1.6.3 or not? It is a well contained change, > with little chance of breaking something, but offers a more sensible > workflow here. > > and I said: > > I am afraid it is a bit too late for "improvements" after -rc1. > People survived without the new feature until now, and they can wait a > bit longer for the next one.... > > Obviously, after that nothing happened. We have some people who send > reminders for good topics after the original thread died without producing > a visible result. I'd ask you to do the same (when you can---as everybody > else, you don't work full time on git; neither do I). [...] > To restart the discussion so that we can have it (if it is a good change) > after 1.7.0 ships, here is a pointer to the last revision of the patch. > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/117394/raw Thanks for CCing me, I'm not on the list at the moment. FWIW, Johannes pinged me about this patch a few weeks after that, but after revisiting it a few times I found some issues with it. Here's the email I sent to Johannes on April 24, my apologies that this was a private email only and did not reach the list. "Sorry about the delay again, I've been a bit busy lately. I've thought about it a bit more and tbh. I don't think this patch - even if rebased - should be merged. The original idea was that a module can be marked for auto-rebasing in .gitmodules. The issue with that is that AFAIK git submodule does not store branch info. So such auto-rebasing would only work provided it would be on the master branch. Anything else would require a fancier script than my patch including specifying which branch should be checked out in the original clone. Right now, I don't have the time to design such a patch and I'm not even sure how much it is needed. With git submodule foreach it's relatively simple to just do the auto-rebase setting for all modules and I would not be surprised if the majority of use-cases require auto-rebasing on all modules anyway. Does that make sense? " So in this particular case the patchset was withdrawn by me for technical reasons (and the lack of time to sort out the details). It should have communicated better - again, my apologies for that. Cheers, Peter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html