Jens Lehmann <> writes:

> Am 09.07.2012 21:38, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
>> Jens Lehmann <> writes:
>>> Cool, so let's drop this patch and I'll teach "rm" to handle
>>> populated submodules according to what we do for regular files:
>>> Make sure there are no modifications which could get lost (unless
>>> "-f") and remove all tracked files and the gitfile from the work
>>> tree (unless "--cached") before removing the submodule from the
>>> index. If the submodule uses the old layout with the .git
>>> directory instead of a gitfile we error out just like we do today.
>> Alternatively we could "mv" .git directory out of the way and the
>> next "git checkout" of a branch that still has the submodule can
>> make a gitfile to point there, no?
> Yup. That would mean a smooth transition for legacy .git-dir
> submodules into the new gitfile world.
>>> And we didn't talk about untracked or ignored files which may live
>>> inside the submodules work tree so far, but according to what a
>>> "rm -r" does in the superproject they should still be around after
>>> using "rm" on a populated submodule, right?
>> Until we add the "precious" class, untracked and ignored files are
>> expendable, so if a submodule working tree has no modification and
>> only has leftover *.o files, they can be nuked as part of submodule
>> removal, but if it has an untracked and unignored *.c file for
>> example, the "rm" operation without "-f" should be stopped, no?
> Ok, untracked files mark the submodule modified while ignored files
> which are not tracked won't.
> Thanks for this discussion, I'll start hacking on that.

A mild ping on seemingly stalled topic.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to