On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 10:51 -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 1:06 PM, David Turner <novalis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > Git reset --mixed ignores submodules which are not
> > initialized. I've
> > attached a demo script.
> >
> > On one hand, this matches the documentation ("Resets the index but
> > not
> > the working tree"). But on the other hand, it kind of doesn't:
> > "(i.e.,
> > the changed files are preserved but not marked for commit)".
> >
> > It's hard to figure out what a mixed reset should do. It would be
> > weird for it to initialize the submodule. Maybe it should just
> > refuse
> > to run? Maybe there should be an option for it to initialize the
> > submodule for you? Maybe it should drop a special-purpose file
> > that
> > git understands to be a submodule change? For instance (and this
> > is
> > insane, but, like, maybe worth considering) it could use extended
> > filesystem attributes, where available.
> >
> > #!/bin/bash
> > mkdir demo
> > cd demo
> >
> > git init main
> >
> > (
> > git init sub1 &&
> > cd sub1 &&
> > dd if=/dev/urandom of=f bs=40 count=1 &&
>
> We prefer reproducability in tests, so if we take this into
> a (regression) test later we may want to
> s/dd.../echo "determinism!" >f/
Yeah, that was leftover from some previous version of this script, I
think. This wasn't intended to be a t/ test, since I don't know what
the right answer is -- just a demo in case my prose was unclear.
> > # commit that change on main, deinit the submodule and do a mixed
> > reset
> > (
> > cd main &&
> > git add sub1 &&
> > git commit -m 'update sub1' &&
> > git submodule deinit sub1 &&
> > git reset --mixed HEAD^ &&
>
> As of now most commands (including reset)
> are unaware of submodules to begin with.
> They are ignored in most cases, i.e. git-status
> has some tack-on to (pseudo-)report changes
> in submodules, but it's not really builtin.
>
> A submodule that is not initialized
> ( i.e. submodule.<name>.url is unset) ought
> to not be touched at all. This is spelled out in
> the man page for "submodule update" only at this
> point.
>
>
> > git status # change to sub1 is lost
>
> The change is not really lost, as you can get it via
>
> git checkout HEAD@{1}
> git submodule update --init
Sure, the commit isn't lost entirely. But a mixed reset is often used
to mean "go back to before I committed", and here, that's not precisely
what's happening. In other words, it's not confusing to the user.
> This works most of the time, but it is unreliable as the
> submodule may have had some gc inbetween which
> threw away important objects.
Sure; that's a separate issue.
> Steping back a bit, rereading the subject line,
> what do you think is the bug here?
>
> * git-status not reporting about uninitialized submodules?
Here, I think git-status is correctly reporting the state of the repo.
> * git reset --mixed not touching the submodule worktree
Yes, possibly.
> * lack of --recurse-submodules in git-reset? (and that not
> being default, see prior point)
Or possibly this.
> * submodules being in detached HEAD all the time?
In this case, the submodule is not initialized, so it is not in any
state at all.
For me, the bug (if any) is the bad user experience of doing a mixed
reset and expecting to be able to commit (possibly with some git-add
operations) from there and get back something like the commit to which
the user had git-reset.
That's why I have the question mark there -- it's not clear that this
is a reasonable expectation.