On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Sven Verdoolaege wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 12:28:47PM -0500, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > > It would be wrong to do "commit -a" in submodules if the supermodule > > weren't being committed with -a, of course. > > What if you say "git commit submodule" ? Obviously no -a, as I said. > If you agree with the above, then why should "git commit -a" > do any different from "git commit submodule" if submodule was > the only thing that got changed ? If submodule was the only thing that got changed, it's not dirty; if it were dirty, some of its contents would also have gotten changed. Surely: "git commit submodule/foo bar" should do "git commit foo" in submodule, and then commit the supermodule with the new commit for the submodule and the change to bar. And so "submodule/foo" is something you could commit changes to, so it should get picked up by -a. Of course, if submodule *is* the *only* thing that changed (e.g., you did a fast-forward merge in it, or you've previously committed it completely), there won't be a "commit -a" in it, because that would just generate a gratuitous commit. -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank* - 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