Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> Are you saying this might be a design mistake and >>> the .update ought to be respected by all the other >>> commands? For example >>> git reset --recurse-submodules >>> should ignore the .update= none? >> >> I have been under the impression that that has been the traditional >> desire of what .update ought to mean. I personally do not have a >> strong opinion---at least not yet. > > In this context note v2.14.0-rc1-34-g7463e2ec3 > (bw/submodule-config-cleanup~7, "unpack-trees: > don't respect submodule.update") that is going opposite of > your impression. Exactly. We are in agreement that recent developments seem to go against the traditional desire and it is understandable Lars sees this as a regression. I still do not have a strong opinion either way, if this is a regression or a progress. > Maybe, I'll think about it. However there is no such > equivalent for trees (and AFAICT never came up) to > treat a specific directory other than the rest in worktree > operations. I am not sure if I follow. Submodules are not trees and one of the reasons people may want to separate things into different modules is so that they can treat them differently. If submodules allow you a richer set of operations than a tree that is part of a monolithic project, is that necessarily a bad thing?
