Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> In favor of not letting users opt out: exposing fewer switches to users >> makes it easier for them to get a good user experience. Instead of >> giving users the ability to build-your-own UX, maintaining a small >> configuration surface makes configuration easy and puts the onus back on >> Git (or me, really :P) to make sure that the UX really works well for >> all users, instead of opting out and saying "oh the user has >> branches.recurseSubmodules=false, so I'll choose not to support them". >> I think this stance is good from a product excellence perspective, but >> it's an obvious risk. >> >> A way forward might be: >> >> * mitigate the breaking changes by flagging this with >> feature.experimental >> * test this behavior with real users (aka internal) and iterate from >> there >> >> Does that make sense? I'd like to make sure I'm not missing something >> very big here. > > It does, but I think that we can still build a flexible product without > compromising UI/UX :) Agreed. The long term result might be that submodules + branches will always live behind its own flag (though I hope not..). One person's flexibility is another person's complexity, so we will need a lot of finesse in order to find the right tradeoff. >>> Also, I assume the new behaviour would carry over to 'git checkout -b' and >>> 'git switch -c' ? >>>> * `git switch --recurse-submodules topic` should checkout the branch >>>> `topic` in each of the repositories >>> >>> Nit: I guess you also include 'git checkout --r topic' here also ? >> >> Yes and yes (I believe --r refers to --recurse-submodules?). > > Yes, and it works on the command-line ! ;) long options can be shortened > if unambiguous, see 'man gitcli'. Ah, TIL. Thanks :)
