Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@xxxxxxx> writes: > Is it possible to make 'fetch' only .. well .. fetch objects, without > updating any refs? Not very easily, and that is very deliberate. The objects fetched will become dangling if you allowed such a mode of operation, and will immediately become subject to gc. As Avery said, when the user asks "what's the status" in the superproject, "the superproject binds a commit you do not have locally at these paths" is a perfectly valid answer, and as Dscho argues, it is not good to avoid giving that answer by running fetch behind the user's back. And the thing is, if you do the "without updating refs" fetch, I think you would make things even worse. The superproject status will then may say that you have everything you need, but the commit is not anchored with any ref in the subproject repository and can be gc'ed at any time. The answer you gave to the "status" request cannot be trusted anymore. By honestly saying "The superproject binds a commit you do not have locally at these paths", the user *can* choose *when* to go there and update, or have "git submodule update" command to that for him. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
