On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 11:56 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > This is the continuation of f2d48994dc1 (submodule.c: submodule_move_head
> > works with broken submodules, 2017-04-18), which tones down the case of
> > "broken submodule" in case of a missing git directory of the submodule to
> > be only a warning.
>
> After seeing this warning, as we do not do any remedial action in
> this codepath, the user with a repository in this state will keep
> seeing the 'missing' message. Wouldn't we want to give a hint in
> addition (e.g. 'you can run "git submodule update $name" to
> recover', or something like that)?
Not quite, as this is only triggered in the case of 'old_head = NULL', which
is when you have a superproject that is missing the submodule in the
working tree before and wants to have it afterwards.
Looking at the test in the previous patch, I would think a reasonable workflow
in the test is
git clone --recurse-submodules super1 super1_clone && cd super1_clone
git checkout --recurse-submodules historic_state
# see warning, but checkout proceeds
git fetch --recurse-submodules
# clones the submodule as it was configured active via the clone
git checkout --recurse-submodules historic_state
# this checkout will put the submodule in place
# not sure if -f is needed here, though.
I am currently working on the cloning of submodules that are not currently
in the working tree while fetching in the superproject, which would address
the latter part.
> The MOVE_HEAD_FORCE codepath that follows this hunk is, eh, already
> forcing to correct the situation, so there is no need to touch that,
> which makes sense, if I understand correctly.
No, that is not executed for now as it depends on 'old_head'.
In case of FORCE we might want to die instead of just warn about that submodule.
Stefan
