Hello,
I'm just an advanced Git user, not a Git developer. So I might find some time to improve the suggested script, which I provided with the hints given on the mailing list, but I have no time to do a complete feature release in your patch based Git flow.
I'm currently involved in 8 other open source projects. One can't improve the world alone by supplying patches to any open source project one is using...
I have no experience with other shells then Bash. So if you rely on a Bash with less features, please port the syntax to such a shell system. (I personally do not support legacy programs or out-date programs).
------
We are talking about circa 50 submodules in total with a maximum depth of 4. The platforms are:
- Mint OS with Git in Bash
- Windows 7 with Git-Bash
- Windows 10 with Git-Bash
- Windows 10 with Posh-Git
Kind regards
Patrick
________________________________________
Von: Stefan Beller [sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Montag, 19. Juni 2017 18:37
Bis: Patrick Lehmann
Cc: Lars Schneider; Git Mailinglist
Betreff: Re: Restoring detached HEADs after Git operations
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Patrick Lehmann
<Patrick.Lehmann@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello Lars,
>
> for your questions:
>> If there are multiple branches with the same hash then your script would pick the first one. Can you imagine a situation where this would be a problem?
>
> I can't think of a good solution to resolve it automatically. Maybe a script could print that there are multiple possibilities and it choose the first branch in the list.
>
>
>> Plus, you are looking only at local branches. Wouldn't it make sense to look at remote branches, too?
>
> This is also related to restoring tags. If we go this way, we should have this priority list:
> - local branches
> - remote branches
For remote branches you would create a local branch of the same name
(if such a branch would not exist, possibly setting it up to track that remote
branch)?
> - tags
as said in the other email and similar to remote branches, we'd not want to have
HEAD pointing to them directly but somehow have a local branch.
>> Submodule processing is already quite slow if you have many of them. I wonder how much this approach would affect the performance.
>
> Yes. It takes a few seconds to iterate all the submodules. It could be improved if the processing wouldn't be based on slow Bash scripts spawning lot's of sub-shells to execute multiple Git commands.
How many submodules are we talking about? (Are you on Windows to make
shell even more fun?)