On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 03:55:10PM +0200, Jens Lehmann wrote: > Am 18.06.2010 11:40, schrieb Johan Herland: > > On Thursday 17 June 2010, Jens Lehmann wrote: > >> But I think this approach will solve a lot of the problems we - and maybe > >> others - have with submodule merges without doing any harm to other > >> workflows. > > > > For the fast-forward case, I fully agree. > > > > For the non-fast-forward case, I would suggest to search for submodule > > merges that contain both submodule commits (as described in [1]), and then: > > > > - If there are no merges, do nothing (leave a conflict). > > > > - If there is exactly one merge, then check it out (but do not record it as > > resolved in the index). > > > > - If there are more merge alternatives, present them as equal alternatives, > > but do nothing (leave a conflict). > > Nice summary. Heiko, would you please post a new patch implementing this > approach? Yes sure. I agree with the proposed scheme. As Jens is working on the automatically checkout submodules extension I will base the merge patch on your branch. Is the checkout_submodule() function already stable enough to be used? cheers Heiko -- 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