On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:28:58AM +0100, Heiko Voigt wrote: > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 02:01:05PM -0500, W. Trevor King wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 07:31:25PM +0100, Heiko Voigt wrote: > > The v4 series leaves the remote branch amigious, but it helps you > > point the local branch at the right hash so that future calls to > > > > $ git submodule foreach 'git pull' > > > > can use the branch's .git/modules/<name>/config settings. > > But IMO thats the functionality which should be implemented in submodule > update and not left to the user. Then you might need submodule.<name>.local-branch, submodule.<name>.remote-repository, and submodule.<name>.remote-branch to configure $ git checkout submodule.<name>.local-branch $ git pull submodule.<name>.remote-repository submodule.<name>.remote-branch and this would ignore the $sha1 stored in the gitlink (which all of the other update commands use). This ignoring-the-$sha1 bit made me think that a built-in pull wasn't a good fit for 'submodule update'. Maybe if it went into a new 'submodule pull'? Then users have a clear distinction: * 'update' to push superproject $sha1 changes into the submodules * 'pull' to push upstream-branch changes into the submodules > > > I would think more of some convention like: > > > > > > $ git checkout -t origin/$branch > > > > > > when first initialising the submodule with e.g. > > > > > > $ git submodule update --init --branch > > > > > > Then later calls of > > > > > > $ git submodule update --branch > > > > > > would have a branch configured to pull from. I imagine that results in > > > a similar behavior gerrit is doing on the server side? > > > > That sounds like it's doing pretty much the same thing. Can you think > > of a test that would distinguish it from my current v4 implementation? > > Well the main difference is that gerrit is automatically updating the > superproject AFAIK. I would like it if we could implement the same > workflow support in the submodule script. It seems to me that this is > already proven to be useful workflow. Ah, sorry, I meant the configuring which remote branch you were pulling from happens at submodule initialization (via .git/modules/…) for both your workflow and my v4. You're right that having a builtin pull is different from my v4. > https://github.com/hvoigt/git/commits/hv/floating_submodules_draft I looked over this before, but maybe not thoroughly enough ;). > > > How about reusing the -b|--branch option for add? Since we only change > > > the behavior when submodule.$name.update is set to branch it seems > > > reasonable to me. Opinions? > > > > That was the approach I used in v1, but people were concerned that we > > would be stomping on previously unclaimed config space. Since noone > > has pointed out other uses besides Gerrit's very similar case, I'm not > > sure if that is still an issue. > > Could you point me to that mail? I cannot seem to find it in my archive. Hmm. It seems like Phil's initial response was (accidentally?) off list. The relevant portion was: On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 06:03:53PM -0400, Phil Hord wrote: > Some projects now use the 'branch' config value to record the tracking > branch for the submodule. Some ascribe different meaning to the > configuration if the value is given vs. undefined. For example, see > the Gerrit submodule-subscription mechanism. This change will cause > those workflows to behave differently than they do now. > > I do like the idea, but I wish it had a different name for the > recording. Maybe --record-branch=${BRANCH} as an extra switch so the > action is explicitly requested. As I said, I'm happy to go back to --branch if opinions have changed. On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:28:58AM +0100, Heiko Voigt wrote: > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 02:01:05PM -0500, W. Trevor King wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 07:31:25PM +0100, Heiko Voigt wrote: > > > > Because you need to recurse through submodules for `update --branch` > > > > even if "$subsha1" == "$sha1", I had to amend the conditional > > > > controlling that block. This broke one of the existing tests, which I > > > > "fixed" in patch 4. I think a proper fix would involve rewriting > > > > > > > > (clear_local_git_env; cd "$sm_path" && > > > > ( (rev=$(git rev-list -n 1 $sha1 --not --all 2>/dev/null) && > > > > test -z "$rev") || git-fetch)) || > > > > die "$(eval_gettext "Unable to fetch in submodule path '\$sm_path'")" > > > > > > > > but I'm not familiar enough with rev-list to want to dig into that > > > > yet. If feedback for the earlier three patches is positive, I'll work > > > > up a clean fix and resubmit. > > > > > > You probably need to separate your handling here. The comparison of the > > > currently checked out sha1 and the recorded sha1 is an optimization > > > which skips unnecessary fetching in case the submodules commits are > > > already correct. This code snippet checks whether the to be checked out > > > sha1 is already local and also skips the fetch if it is. We should not > > > break that. > > > > Agreed. However, determining if the target $sha1 is local should have > > nothing to do with the current checked out $subsha1. > > See my draft or the diff below for an illustration of the splitup. > > [snip diff] This looks fine, but my current --branch implementation (which doesn't pull) is only a thin branch-checkout layer on top of the standard `update` functionality. I'm still unsure if built-in pulls are worth the configuration trouble. I'll sleep on it. Maybe I'll feel better about them tomorrow ;). Cheers, Trevor -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature