The long-option bit
didn't make it into the commit message, but it's under the fold in
[1]. I've put --signoff between --log and --stat to preserve the
alphabetical order.
[1]: https://public-inbox.org/git/87iqe7zspn@jondo.cante.net/
Helped-by: Junio C Hamano
Signed-of
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 01:46:39AM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote:
> The order of options in merge-options.txt isn't clear to me, but
> I've put --signoff between --log and --stat as somewhat alphabetized
> and having an "add to the commit message" function like --log.
Pull has supported these since ea230d8 (pull: add the --gpg-sign
option, 2014-02-10). Insert in long-option alphabetical order
following 7c85d274 (Documentation/merge-options.txt: order options in
alphabetical groups, 2009-10-22).
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King
---
This patch is based on maint
t as somewhat alphabetized and
having an "add to the commit message" function like --log.
Helped-by: Junio C Hamano
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King
---
Changes since v1 [1]:
* Dropped "Following" paragraph. Junio took issue with the phrasing
[2], and the implementation in v2
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 02:42:30PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "W. Trevor King" writes:
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:17:51AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> "W. Trevor King" writes:
> >>
> >> > Following 09c2cb87 (pull: pass --
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:17:51AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "W. Trevor King" writes:
>
> > Following 09c2cb87 (pull: pass --allow-unrelated-histories to "git
> > merge", 2016-03-18) with the tests also drawing on 14d01b4f (merge:
> > add a --sig
stic pull is likely to succeed, suggesting it is
easier to explain to Git newbies than a FETCH_HEAD merge.
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King
---
Documentation/git-merge.txt | 8
Documentation/merge-options.txt | 10 ++
builtin/pull.c
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 01:05:35PM -0500, Matus Faro wrote:
> What I mean is a distributed code review system where a merge
> request along with review comments would be stored within the git
> repository and allowed to be pushed and pulled between repository
> clones. This would allow users to ret
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 06:39:56PM +0300, Dmitry Oksenchuk wrote:
> We're in the middle of conversion of a large CVS repository (20
> years, 70K commits, 1K branches, 10K tags) to Git and considering
> two separate Git repositories: "historical" with CVS history and
> "working" created without hist
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 03:49:36PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I'll queue this as-is, but it makes me wonder if we want to do this
> without if/then/fi, e.g.
>
> : ${LOGNAME:=${USER:-$(id -u -n)}
I'm fine with that too.
> Spelling everything out with if/then/fi is obviously at the other
x27;t
expect compatibility issues.
[1]: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/id.html
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King
---
The patch is based on the current maint branch.
Previous LOGNAME discussion:
* Michael Gruber on 2011-05-06 suggesting a discussing a whoami
fallback [1] (but
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 02:12:58PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> If we are extending the documentation on "---", …
Ah, I see that the --- are actually mentioned already in the
DISCUSSION section of git-am(1) since 2499857b (git-am documentation:
describe what is taken from where, 2007-03-24). I
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 01:23:18PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Here are the topics that have been cooking.
It looks like my boring git-mailinfo doc patch [1] fell through the
cracks here ;). Or maybe it's just cooking a bit longer before
getting queued?
Cheers,
Trevor
[1]: Gmane: http://arti
And explain how it interacts with the scissors setting.
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King
---
The three-dash limit comes from f0658cf2 (restrict the patch
filtering, 2007-03-12), but I couldn't find any associated
documentation. Since the effect is so similar to the scissors line, I
thought
githooks(5) suggests:
Information about why the push is rejected may be sent to the user
by writing to standard error.
So follow that advice in the sample.
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King
---
templates/hooks--pre-push.sample | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 06:05:10PM +0200, Charles Brossollet wrote:
> The two problems I'm pointing are:
>
> 1. After checkout of a branch that tracks /user/main repo, call git
>init submodule motors. Git registers it in .git/config with URL
>/user/sub, while it should be /central/sub acco
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 03:17:07PM +0200, Jens Lehmann wrote:
> And by the way: wouldn't it make more sense to tell the user /what/
> we do automatically? So maybe 'submodule.autoupdate' is a better
> name for the new switch?
Or autocheckout? No need to preserve submodule-specific jargon when
we
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 12:00:33PM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 01:31:39PM -0500, Robert Dailey wrote:
> > Instead of just creating my branch and starting to make commits, I
> > now have to setup my submodule branch first. Also pull requests
> > won&
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 01:31:39PM -0500, Robert Dailey wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:23 AM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> > 3rd party libraries sound loosely-coupled to me ;). In one of my more
> > mature projects I did a similar thing, and just used relative URLs [1]
> >
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 11:18:28AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jens Lehmann writes:
> > We had two settings in mind,...
> > So what if clone would just do an "git submodule init" for now when
> > "submodule.autoinit" is set but "submodule.autoupdate" isn't [?]
> > ... and a single "submodule.au
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 08:07:50AM +0200, Heiko Voigt wrote:
> +The caller can look up information about submodules by using the
> +`submodule_from_path()` or `submodule_from_name()` functions.
That's for an already-known submodule. Do we need a way to list
submodules (e.g. for 'submodule foreach
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 10:57:17AM -0500, Robert Dailey wrote:
> I was planning on creating a submodule for our third party libs and
> store them extracted in there.
3rd party libraries sound loosely-coupled to me ;). In one of my more
mature projects I did a similar thing, and just used relative
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 09:03:25AM -0500, Robert Dailey wrote:
> When I work on a feature, I normally create a feature branch. If I
> happen to make changes to the submodule that only work with the
> changes introduced in my feature branch, that seems to complicate
> things. For the purposes of the
pushremote.
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King
---
Documentation/revisions.txt | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/revisions.txt b/Documentation/revisions.txt
index 5a286d0..0796118 100644
--- a/Documentation/revisions.txt
+++ b/Documentation/revisions.tx
On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 02:44:02AM -0500, William Giokas wrote:
> Maybe a time to use something like::
>
> from mercurial import foo \
> bar \
> baz \
> ...
>
> Would make that import into quite a few lines, but would help
the topic at
> hand.
I'm trying to motivate a way to slow/disable 'git pull', which I see
as orthogonal to your push to change the default configuration. I
thought describing my workflow in more detail would help clarify why…
> W. Trevor King wrote:
> > On Fri, May 02, 20
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 05:20:11PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> W. Trevor King wrote:
> > > > The 'git pull' (with 'none' mode) explainer just helps retrain folks
> > > > that are already using the current 'git pull' incorrec
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 04:18:57PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> W. Trevor King wrote:
> > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 03:34:34PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > > W. Trevor King wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 02:13:25PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
&g
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 03:34:34PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> W. Trevor King wrote:
> > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 02:13:25PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > > It would matter almost exactly zero.
> >
> > Some folks have explicit merge policies, and decidin
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 02:13:25PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> W. Trevor King wrote [1]:
> > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 01:55:36PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > > W. Trevor King wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 08:14:29PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 01:55:36PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> W. Trevor King wrote:
> > On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 08:14:29PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > > W. Trevor King wrote:
> > > > My proposed --prompt behavior is for folks who think “I often ru
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 07:00:06PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> It is very typical for Git newcomers to inadvertently create merges and
> worst; inadvertently pushing them. This is one of the reasons many
> experienced users prefer to avoid 'git pull', and recommend newcomers to
> avoid it as w
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 08:14:29PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> W. Trevor King wrote:
> > My proposed --prompt behavior is for folks who think “I often run
> > this command without thinking it through all the way. I'm also
> > not used to reading Git's output an
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 07:00:02PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Also 'branch..rebase' to 'branch..pullmode'.
Perhaps this has already been hashed out in a previous version of this
series, but we may want to use pull.update and branch..update to
match the existing submodule..update. Both setti
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 07:37:04PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> W. Trevor King wrote:
> > On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 06:25:16PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > > W. Trevor King wrote:
> > > > Fast-forward $current_branch by $count commits to $repository
> >
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 06:25:16PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> W. Trevor King wrote:
> > On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 12:48:46PM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote:
> > > My interest in all of the proposed git-pull-training-wheel patches is
> > > that they give users a w
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 06:34:06PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Nobody ever complained about somebody doing a fast-forward by mistake.
Unless they fast-forward merged a feature branch into master, but the
project prefers explicitly-merged feature branches with a cover-letter
explaination in th
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 12:48:46PM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote:
> My interest in all of the proposed git-pull-training-wheel patches is
> that they give users a way to set a finger-breaking configuration that
> makes pull a no-op (or slows it down, like 'rm -i …'). Then folks
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 02:04:33PM -0400, Marc Branchaud wrote:
> On 14-05-01 01:56 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> > On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 11:20:44AM -0400, Marc Branchaud wrote:
> >> On 14-05-01 05:46 AM, brian m. carlson wrote:
> >>> git checkout maintenan
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 02:16:50PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> The only problem would be when it's not desirable, however, that's a
> problem of the user's ignorance, and the failure of the project's
> policity to communicate clearly to him that he should be running
> `git merge --no-ff`. Ther
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 11:20:44AM -0400, Marc Branchaud wrote:
> On 14-05-01 05:46 AM, brian m. carlson wrote:
> > git checkout maintenance-branch
> > # Update our maintenance branch to the latest from the main repo.
> > git pull --ff-only
> > git pull --no-ff developer-remote topic-branch
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 05:38:34PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> [0] mcgrof@ergon ~/linux (git::master)$ git log c5905afb..v3.5| grep
> ^commit | wc -l
> 24878
> [1] mcgrof@ergon ~/linux (git::master)$ git log c5905afb..v3.4| grep
> ^commit | wc -l
> 13106
> [2] mcgrof@ergon ~/linux (git::maste
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:08:06PM +0200, Jens Lehmann wrote:
> Am 17.04.2014 18:41, schrieb W. Trevor King:
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 06:05:05PM +0100, Jens Lehmann wrote:
> >> *) When a submodule is replaced with a tracked file of the same name
> >>the submod
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 03:22:58PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> * jl/submodule-recursive-checkout (2013-12-26) 5 commits
> - Teach checkout to recursively checkout submodules
> - submodule: teach unpack_trees() to update submodules
> - submodule: teach unpack_trees() to repopulate submodules
>
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 06:05:05PM +0100, Jens Lehmann wrote:
> *) When a submodule is replaced with a tracked file of the same name
>the submodule work tree including any local modifications (and
>even the whole history if it uses a .git directory instead of a
>gitfile!) is simply remo
allowed) [1], but I
imagine there are folks who would resist ;). Maybe a deprecation
period to help ease the transition? This is all assuming that I get
more folks to buy into the tight-syncing ;).
The end-goal of my tightly-bound approach is to remove 'submodule
update' altogethe
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 02:54:48AM +0200, Johan Herland wrote:
> This is a work-in-progress to flesh out (and promote discussion about)
> the expected behaviors for all possible scenarios in which
> 'git submodule update' might be run.
This is lovely :).
> +# - current state of submodule:
> +#
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 09:35:07PM +0200, Jens Lehmann wrote:
> Am 28.03.2014 04:36, schrieb W. Trevor King:
> > The main drawback to this approach is that we're changing a default,
> > but I agree with John's:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:21:23AM +010
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 05:57:50PM +0100, Jens Lehmann wrote:
> Am 28.03.2014 04:58, schrieb W. Trevor King:
> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 08:52:55PM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote:
> >> No the remote branch is in the upstream subproject. I suppose I meant
> >> “the submodu
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 05:55:18PM +0100, Jens Lehmann wrote:
> I just noticed that the two patches Junio added to pu have a
> reworded commit message I'm perfectly happy with.
The revised wording works for me too.
Cheers,
Trevor
--
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.g
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 08:52:55PM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 11:43:47PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 11:36 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> > > submodule..branch::
> > > A remote branch name for track
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 11:43:47PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 11:36 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> > submodule..branch::
> > A remote branch name for tracking updates in the upstream submodule.
> > - If the option is not specified, i
nd get along just fine without
submodule..branch. Remote updates do need a remote branch, but
HEAD works as well here as it did for the initial clone.
Reported-by: Johan Herland
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King
---
This still needs tests, but it gets through the following fine:
rm -rf superproject s
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:21:23AM +0100, Johan Herland wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Heiko Voigt wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:39:03PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> There is this bit for "update" in git-submodule.txt:
> >>
> >> For updates that clone missing submodules, c
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 11:55:21PM +0100, Jens Lehmann wrote:
> Me thinks that when a superproject doesn't have 'branch' configured
> and does set 'update' to something other than 'checkout' for a
> submodule it should better make sure 'master' is a valid branch in
> there. Everything else sounds l
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:15:00AM +0100, Jens Lehmann wrote:
> Am 27.03.2014 22:06, schrieb W. Trevor King:
> > The transition from submodule..* to submodule..* happened
> > in 73b0898d (Teach "git submodule add" the --name option, 2012-09-30),
> > which lan
submodule..branch.
Reported-by: Junio C Hamano
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King
---
This patch is against master, because 23d25e48 hasn't landed in maint
yet. If you want, I can split this into two patches, one against
maint fixing the b9289227 typo and another against master fixing th
I'm breaking this off into a sub-thread, so it doesn't distract from
the main issue.
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:39:03PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> There is this bit for "update" in git-submodule.txt:
>
> For updates that clone missing submodules, checkout-mode updates
> will create submod
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 06:31:27PM +0100, Jens Lehmann wrote:
> Am 27.03.2014 18:16, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> > Johan Herland writes:
> >
> >> I just found a failure to checkout a project with submodules where
> >> there is no explicit submodule branch configuration, and the
> >> submodules happ
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 08:52:08AM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote:
> Working around that to default to the upstream submodule's HEAD is
> possible (you can just use --branch HEAD)
Actually, this is probably not a good idea. The initial submodule
addition works:
$ git submodule add -
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 03:21:49PM +0100, Johan Herland wrote:
> I just found a failure to checkout a project with submodules where
> there is no explicit submodule branch configuration, and the
> submodules happen to not have a "master" branch:
The docs say [1]:
A remote branch name for tracki
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 02:00:23PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jens Lehmann writes:
> > I think the user needs to sort things out, just like she has to do
> > when a file has a merge conflict. But unfortunately we cannot use
> > conflict markers here, so I'd propose the following:
> >
> > * Whe
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:52:49PM +0100, Jens Lehmann wrote:
> Implement the functionality needed to enable work tree manipulating
> commands to that a deleted submodule should not only affect the index
> (leaving all the files of the submodule in the work tree) but also to
> remove the work tree
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:54:17PM +0100, Jens Lehmann wrote:
> Implement the functionality needed to enable work tree manipulating
> commands so that an changed submodule does not only affect the index but
> it also updates the work tree of any initialized submodule according to
> the SHA-1 record
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:51:57PM +0100, Jens Lehmann wrote:
> submodule update' eacht time obsolete, which was tedious and error prone.
^ each
I'm just reading the commit messages this pass ;).
Cheers,
Trevor
--
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 08:32:04PM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 3:45 PM, W. Trevor King wrote:
> > + update_module="checkout"
>
> Here, you (unnecessarily) quote 'checkout'...
>
> > -
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King
---
git-submodule.sh | 6 ++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/git-submodule.sh b/git-submodule.sh
index 5e8776c..68dcbe1 100755
--- a/git-submodule.sh
+++ b/git-submodule.sh
@@ -241,6 +241,12 @@ module_name()
#
# Clone a submodule
#
+# $1
ne.comp.version-control.git/240529
[2]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/240336
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King
---
Documentation/git-submodule.txt | 10 ++
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/git-submodule.txt b/Documentation/git-submodule.txt
ind
usage summary and group the update-mode
options into a single set.
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King
---
Documentation/git-submodule.txt | 36 ++---
Documentation/gitmodules.txt| 4 +++
git-submodule.sh| 58 +
t/t7406-subm
This avoids the current awkwardness of having either '' or 'checkout'
for checkout-mode updates, which makes testing for checkout-mode
updates (or non-checkout-mode updates) easier.
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King
---
git-submodule.sh | 27 +++
ne.comp.version-control.git/240536
[7]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/240530
W. Trevor King (4):
submodule: Make 'checkout' update_module explicit
submodule: Document module_clone arguments in comments
submodule: Explicit local branch creation in module_clone
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 03:38:49AM -0500, shawn wilson wrote:
> My issue is in trying to update the submodules, I'm getting:
> % git submodule update --init
> gits/kt (master ⚡)
> swlap1
> fatal: reference is not a tree: 98f1e9f99fca32ab3de901219eb2f
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 01:55:37PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "W. Trevor King" writes:
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:21:04PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> "W. Trevor King" writes:
> >>> +is only touched when the remote reference does no
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:18:06PM -, Philip Oakley wrote:
> From: "Junio C Hamano"
> > "W. Trevor King" writes:
> >> + repository. The update mode defaults to 'checkout', but be
>
> nit: s/but be/but can be/ ?
Thanks. Queuing fo
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 09:02:22PM +, John Keeping wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:55:21PM -0800, W. Trevor King wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:21:04PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > > Not '--checkout'?
> >
> > Oops, will fix in v5.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:43:44AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "W. Trevor King" writes:
>
> > @@ -817,11 +831,15 @@ cmd_update()
> >
> > displaypath=$(relative_path "$prefix$sm_path")
> >
> > -
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:21:04PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "W. Trevor King" writes:
> > @@ -155,13 +155,31 @@ it contains local modifications.
> >
> > update::
> > Update the registered submodules, i.e. clone missing submodules and
> > -
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 09:07:22PM +0100, Francesco Pretto wrote:
> 2014/1/16 W. Trevor King :
> > Avoiding useless clones is probably more important than avoiding
> > duplicate "Invalid update mode" messages.
>
> No, it's not duplicate code.
I meant “duplica
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:22:52AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "W. Trevor King" writes:
>
> > To preserve the local branch, for situations where we're not on a
> > detached HEAD.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King
> > ---
>
>
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:18:00AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "W. Trevor King" writes:
> > @@ -312,7 +317,16 @@ module_clone()
> > echo "gitdir: $rel/$a" >"$sm_path/.git"
> >
> > rel=$(echo $a | sed -e 's|[^/][^/]*|..
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:46:36AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "W. Trevor King" writes:
> > @@ -803,17 +803,10 @@ cmd_update()
> > update_module=$update
> > else
> > update_module=
To preserve the local branch, for situations where we're not on a
detached HEAD.
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King
---
t/t7406-submodule-update.sh | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/t/t7406-submodule-update.sh b/t/t7406-submodule-update.sh
index 0825a92..5a
x27;s explicit local branch creation in
module_clone.
I also add '--checkout' to the usage summary and group the update-mode
options into a single set.
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King
---
Documentation/git-submodule.txt | 36 +++-
Documentation/gitmodules.txt
igned-off-by: W. Trevor King
---
git-submodule.sh | 53 -
1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/git-submodule.sh b/git-submodule.sh
index 68dcbe1..4a09951 100755
--- a/git-submodule.sh
+++ b/git-submodule.sh
@@ -246,6 +246,9
le commits that don't exist in the upstream subprojects. For a
specific example, see the tests that currently generate the
'two_new_submodule_commits' commits.
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King
---
t/t7406-submodule-update.sh | 37 +
1 file changed
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King
---
git-submodule.sh | 6 ++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/git-submodule.sh b/git-submodule.sh
index 5e8776c..68dcbe1 100755
--- a/git-submodule.sh
+++ b/git-submodule.sh
@@ -241,6 +241,12 @@ module_name()
#
# Clone a submodule
#
+# $1
This avoids the current awkwardness of having either '' or 'checkout'
for checkout-mode updates, which makes testing for checkout-mode
updates (or non-checkout-mode updates) easier.
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King
---
git-submodule.sh | 27 +++
ntrol.git/240232
[7]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/240248
W. Trevor King (6):
submodule: Make 'checkout' update_module explicit
submodule: Document module_clone arguments in comments
submodule: Explicit local branch creation in module_clone
t7406: Just-clone
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 01:18:12AM +0100, Francesco Pretto wrote:
> I've matured this opinion about "local-branch" some days ago, but I
> couldn't join the discussion because I was extremely busy. Hope it's
> is still current (and correct).
I think the discussion is still open, but actions are pos
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:19:07PM +0100, Heiko Voigt wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 01:42:09PM -0800, W. Trevor King wrote:
> > The “gitlinked commits must be in the subproject's master” rule
> > protects you from blowing stuff away here. You could use rebase- or
> >
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:46:08PM +0100, Heiko Voigt wrote:
> I would like to step back a bit and get back to the original problem
> at hand: Francescos original use case of an attached head for direct
> commits on a stable branch in a submodule. How about we finish
> discussing the exact solution
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 09:58:30PM +0100, Heiko Voigt wrote:
> A typical workflow where a feature in a project needs some extension or
> change in a submodule goes like this:
>
> 1. The developer does his changes locally implementing everything
>needed. To commit he creates a local branch in t
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:24:45AM +0100, Heiko Voigt wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 02:18:40PM -0800, W. Trevor King wrote:
> > Users who are worried about loosing local updates should not be
> > using a checkout-style updates. If they are using a
> > checkout-style update
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 02:13:46PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "W. Trevor King" writes:
>
> > Additional metadata, the initial checkout, and syncing down
> > ---
> >
> > However, folks who do loc
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 08:37:37PM +0100, Jens Lehmann wrote:
> Am 12.01.2014 02:08, schrieb W. Trevor King:
> > For folks who treat the submodule as a black box (and do no local
> > development), switchable trees are all they care about. They can
> > easily checkout (or n
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 10:17:51PM -0800, W. Trevor King wrote:
> In another branch of the submodule thread Francesco kicked off, I
> mentioned that we could store the preferred local submodule branch on
> a per-superbranch level if we used the
> .git/modules//config for local
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 10:40:52PM +0100, Jens Lehmann wrote:
> Am 09.01.2014 20:55, schrieb W. Trevor King:
> > On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 08:23:07PM +0100, Jens Lehmann wrote:
> >> Am 09.01.2014 18:32, schrieb W. Trevor King:
> >>> However, the local-branch sett
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 08:23:07PM +0100, Jens Lehmann wrote:
> Am 09.01.2014 18:32, schrieb W. Trevor King:
> > However, the local-branch setting needs to be both
> > per-submodule and per-superproject-branch, so .git/config doesn't work
> > very well. I think it'
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 09:31:13AM +0100, Jens Lehmann wrote:
> Am 09.01.2014 02:09, schrieb Francesco Pretto:
> > 2014/1/9 W. Trevor King :
> >>
> >> However, submodule..local-branch has nothing to do with remote
> >> repositories or tracking branches.
> &
From: "W. Trevor King"
There's no sense in setting up a local branch if we're just going to
go back to a detached HEAD with every checkout-mode update. This
commit replaces the checkout with a reset, updating whatever the
locally checked out branch (or detached HEAD) happens
1 - 100 of 340 matches
Mail list logo
