On 10/11, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 11:39:21AM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > but in the long run my goal > > > for submodules is and always was: Make them behave as close to files as > > > possible. And why should a 'git add submodule' not magically do > > > everything it can to make submodules just work? I can look into a patch > > > for that if people agree here... > > > > I'd love to see this implemented. I cc'd Josh (the author of git-series), who > > may disagree with this, or has some good input how to go forward without > > breaking git-series. > > git-series doesn't use the git-submodule command at all, nor does it > construct series trees using git-add or any other git command-line tool; > it constructs gitlinks directly. Most of the time, it doesn't even make > sense to `git checkout` a series branch. Modifying commands like git-add > and similar to automatically manage .gitmodules won't cause any issue at > all, as long as git itself doesn't start rejecting or complaining about > repositories that have gitlinks without a .gitmodules file. That's good to know! And from what I remember, with the commands we've begun teaching to understand submodules we have been requiring a .gitmodules entry for a submodule in order to do the recursion, and a gitlink without a .gitmodules entry would simply be ignored or skipped. -- Brandon Williams
