Stefan Beller wrote: > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 09/25, Stefan Beller wrote: >>> Have one place to explain the effects of setting submodule.<name>.update >>> instead of two. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>>>> I disagree. Actually, I think the git-config(1) blurb could just >>>>> point here, and that the text here ought to be clear about what >>>>> commands it affects and how an end user would use it. >>>> >>>> I tend to agree with the consolidation. >>> >>> Something like this? >> >> I like the consolidation, its easier to keep up to date when its only in >> one place. > > After thinking about it further, I'd like to withdraw this patch > for now. > > The reason is that this would also forward point to > git-submodule.txt, such that we'd still have 2 places > in which it is explained. The current situation with explaining > it in 3 places is not too bad as each place hints at their specific > circumstance: > git-submodule.txt explains the values to set itself. > gitmodules.txt explains what the possible fields in that file are, > and regarding this field it points out it is ignored in the init call. > config.txt: actually describe the effects of the setting. > > I think we can keep it as-is for now. Sorry, I got lost. Which state is as-is? As a user, how do I find out what submodule.*.update is going to do and which commands will respect it? Maybe we should work on first wordsmithing the doc and then figuring out where it goes? The current state of the doc with (?) three different texts, all wrong, doesn't seem like a good state to preserve. Thanks, Jonathan
