-by: W. Trevor King <wk...@tremily.us>
---
Changes since v2 [1]:
* Replace the two motivational paragraphs with Junio's suggested
sentence [2].
* Drop test_hash_trailer in favor of --pretty='format:%(trailers)'
[3]. It turns out that the builtin tooling I was looking for whi
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.
The order
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 <wk...@tremily.us>
---
This
add to the commit message" function like --log.
Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com>
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wk...@tremily.us>
---
Changes since v1 [1]:
* Dropped "Following" paragraph. Junio took issue with the phrasing
[2], and the implementation in v2 has
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 02:42:30PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "W. Trevor King" <wk...@tremily.us> writes:
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:17:51AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> "W. Trevor King" <wk...@tremily.us> writes:
> >>
> &
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:17:51AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "W. Trevor King" <wk...@tremily.us> writes:
>
> > Following 09c2cb87 (pull: pass --allow-unrelated-histories to "git
> > merge", 2016-03-18) with the tests also drawing on 14d01b4f
cceed, suggesting it is
easier to explain to Git newbies than a FETCH_HEAD merge.
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wk...@tremily.us>
---
Documentation/git-merge.txt | 8
Documentation/merge-options.txt | 10 ++
builtin/pull.c | 8
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 retain
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 history
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
://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/id.html
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King wk...@tremily.us
---
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 whoami isn't POSIX
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:
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
And explain how it interacts with the scissors setting.
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King wk...@tremily.us
---
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
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 wk...@tremily.us
---
templates/hooks--pre-push.sample | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion
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
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 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
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 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 11:18:28AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jens Lehmann jens.lehm...@web.de 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
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]
and sibling mirrors/forks
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't show the changes
.
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King wk...@tremily.us
---
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
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
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, 2014 at 05:20:11PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
W
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 07:00:02PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
Also 'branch.name.rebase' to 'branch.name.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.name.update to
match the existing
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 and using 'reset --hard
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
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 run
this command without thinking it through
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:
W. Trevor King wrote:
My
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 deciding how much
that matters is probably best
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:
It would matter almost exactly zero
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' incorrectly.
If you are going to train them to use a configuration, it should
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
git
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`. There's
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 maintenance-branch
# Update our maintenance branch
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 who
compulsively run
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
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 way to set a finger-breaking configuration
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
$refpec?
Why would anyone say
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 05:38:34PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
[0] mcgrof@ergon ~/linux (git::master)$ 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::master)$
'submodule
update' altogether and end up with a simpler interface [2]:
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 05:08:47PM -0800, W. Trevor King wrote:
* git submodule [--quiet] add [-b branch] [-f|--force] [--name name]
[--reference repository] [--] repository [path]
* git submodule [--quiet] init
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
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 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 submodule work tree including any local
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 +0100, Johan Herland wrote:
I expect in most cases
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
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 submodule's remote-tracking branch following
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 tracking
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 -b HEAD /tmp
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 jo...@herland.net writes:
I just found a failure to checkout a project with submodules where
there is no explicit submodule branch configuration, and the
submodules
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 submodules
to the current submodule.name.branch.
Reported-by: Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King wk...@tremily.us
---
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
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.path.* to submodule.name.* happened
in 73b0898d (Teach git submodule add the --name option, 2012-09-30),
which landed in v1.8.1-rc0 on 2012-12-03.
Nope
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 like
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, checkout-mode
submodule.name.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 jo...@herland.net
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King wk...@tremily.us
---
This still needs tests, but it gets through the following fine:
rm -rf superproject
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 wk...@tremily.us wrote:
submodule.name.branch::
A remote branch name for tracking updates in the upstream submodule.
- If the option is not specified, it defaults
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 wk...@tremily.us wrote:
submodule.name.branch::
A remote branch name for tracking updates
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 02:00:23PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jens Lehmann jens.lehm...@web.de 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:
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
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 recorded
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 of
-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
Documentation: Describe
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 wk...@tremily.us
---
git-submodule.sh | 27 +++
1 file
-by: W. Trevor King wk...@tremily.us
---
Documentation/git-submodule.txt | 36 ++---
Documentation/gitmodules.txt| 4 +++
git-submodule.sh| 58 +
t/t7406-submodule-update.sh | 39 ++-
4 files
. Trevor King wk...@tremily.us
---
Documentation/git-submodule.txt | 10 ++
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/git-submodule.txt b/Documentation/git-submodule.txt
index 2e1c7a2..21cb59a 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-submodule.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-submodule.txt
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King wk...@tremily.us
---
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
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 wk...@tremily.us wrote:
+ update_module=checkout
Here, you (unnecessarily) quote 'checkout'...
- update_module
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:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:46:36AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
W. Trevor King wk...@tremily.us writes:
@@ -803,17 +803,10 @@ cmd_update()
update_module=$update
else
update_module=$(git config submodule.$name.update
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:18:00AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
W. Trevor King wk...@tremily.us writes:
@@ -312,7 +317,16 @@ module_clone()
echo gitdir: $rel/$a $sm_path/.git
rel=$(echo $a | sed -e 's|[^/][^/]*|..|g')
- (clear_local_git_env; cd $sm_path GIT_WORK_TREE=. git
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:22:52AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
W. Trevor King wk...@tremily.us writes:
To preserve the local branch, for situations where we're not on a
detached HEAD.
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King wk...@tremily.us
---
This should be a part of some other change
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 09:07:22PM +0100, Francesco Pretto wrote:
2014/1/16 W. Trevor King wk...@tremily.us:
Avoiding useless clones is probably more important than avoiding
duplicate Invalid update mode messages.
No, it's not duplicate code.
I meant “duplicating the Invalid update mode
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:21:04PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
W. Trevor King wk...@tremily.us writes:
@@ -155,13 +155,31 @@ it contains local modifications.
update::
Update the registered submodules, i.e. clone missing submodules and
- checkout the commit specified
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:43:44AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
W. Trevor King wk...@tremily.us writes:
@@ -817,11 +831,15 @@ cmd_update()
displaypath=$(relative_path $prefix$sm_path)
- if test $update_module = none
- then
+ case
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.
Shouldn't this also be `--checkout` (backticks
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:18:06PM -, Philip Oakley wrote:
From: Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com
W. Trevor King wk...@tremily.us writes:
+ repository. The update mode defaults to 'checkout', but be
nit: s/but be/but can be/ ?
Thanks. Queuing for v5.
Cheers,
Trevor
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 01:55:37PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
W. Trevor King wk...@tremily.us writes:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:21:04PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
W. Trevor King wk...@tremily.us writes:
+is only touched when the remote reference does not match the
+submodule's HEAD
-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-cloned checkouts update to the gitlinked hash with 'reset'
t7406: Add
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King wk...@tremily.us
---
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
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 wk...@tremily.us
---
git-submodule.sh | 27 +++
1 file
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 wk...@tremily.us
---
t/t7406-submodule-update.sh | 37 +
1 file changed, 37
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 wk...@tremily.us
---
Documentation/git-submodule.txt | 36 +++-
Documentation/gitmodules.txt
. Trevor King wk...@tremily.us
---
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
To preserve the local branch, for situations where we're not on a
detached HEAD.
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King wk...@tremily.us
---
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
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, and they ask for an update
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 the
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 of
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
merge-style integration as well
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
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 not, with deinit), the submodule
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 02:13:46PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
W. Trevor King wk...@tremily.us writes:
Additional metadata, the initial checkout, and syncing down
---
However, folks who do local submodule development will care
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/submodule-name/config for local overrides
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 wk...@tremily.us:
However, submodule.name.local-branch has nothing to do with remote
repositories or tracking branches.
My bad: this means the feature
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's better to use something like my
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 setting needs to be both
per-submodule and per
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 12:07:56AM +0100, Francesco Pretto wrote:
After long thoughts, I think your idea about a local branch with a
differently named remote branch looks interesting but I would be
extremely cautious to add a ' submodule.name.local-branch' now. Do
we have a similar mechanism
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 12:54:54AM +0100, Francesco Pretto wrote:
2) Having 'git checkout', 'git checkout --recurse-submodules' and
finally 'git submodule checkout' is too much for me.
Agreed. Since 'git checkout' already exists and 'git checkout
--recurse-submodules' is close [1,2], I think
1 - 100 of 311 matches
Mail list logo
