Hi, Stefan Beller wrote: > On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 12:18 PM Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Stefan Beller wrote: >>> 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. [...] >> I don't understand what workflow this is a part of. >> >> If the submodule is missing, shouldn't we make it non-missing instead >> of producing a partial checkout that doesn't build? > > No. checkout and friends do not want to touch the network > (unless we are in a partial clone world; that is the user is fully > aware that commands can use the network at totally unexpected > times) > > So for that, all we can do is better error messages. Thanks. This patch doesn't just improve error messages, though, but it makes the operation report success instead of failing. Isn't that likely to produce more confusion when I run additional commands afterward? In other words, instead of $ git checkout --recurse-submodules -B master origin/new-fancy-branch Branch 'master' set up to track remote branch 'new-fancy-branch' from 'origin'. Switched to a new branch 'master' warning: Submodule 'new-fancy-submodule' is missing $ git status [some unclean state] I would prefer to experience $ git checkout --recurse-submodules -B master origin/new-fancy-branch fatal: missing submodule 'new-fancy-submodule' hint: run "git fetch --recurse-submodules" to fetch it $ git status [clean state] $ git fetch --recurse-submodules [...] $ git checkout --recurse-submodules -B master origin/new-fancy-branch Branch 'master' set up to track remote branch 'new-fancy-branch' from 'origin'. Switched to a new branch 'master' $ git status [clean state] Thanks, Jonathan
