Am 23.10.2012 21:16, schrieb Nahor:
> On 2012-10-22 09:34, W. Trevor King wrote:
>> From: "W. Trevor King" <>
>> This removes a configuration step if you're trying to setup Ævar's
>>    $ git submodule foreach 'git checkout $(git config --file 
>> $toplevel/.gitmodules submodule.$name.branch) && git pull'
>> workflow from
>>    commit f030c96d8643fa0a1a9b2bd9c2f36a77721fb61f
>>    Author: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <>
>>    Date:   Fri May 21 16:10:10 2010 +0000
>>      git-submodule foreach: Add $toplevel variable
>> If you're not using that workflow, I see no harm in recording the
>> branch used to determine the original submodule commit.

Except recording the branch name might raise expectations about what git
will do with it. And as far as this patch goes, git won't do anything
with it (yet).

> IMHO, the problem is that this works only for a very specific workflow. 
> Normal git usage can very easily break this feature.
> For instance, the module may later be updated to a commit in branch B instead 
> of branch A. Unless you remember to also update .gitmodule, you have then 
> inconsistent information.
> A similar issue arises if branch A is deleted from the module later (for 
> instance because it has been merged in the master branch and is not useful 
> anymore). Then .gitmodule points to a non-existant branch.
> Same thing if a branch is renamed.

Those are valid points. The next "git submodule update" will leave the
submodule with a detached HEAD, making the branch configuration rather
meaningless (except for your "git submodule foreach ..." use case of

> Last issue, the branch that exists in your local repository may not exist in 
> someone else's repository, either because the branch is purely local, or 
> because it has a different name on the remote repo.

You'll always face this kind of problems with commits too when using
submodules, so I don't see that as a problem here.

> I think a better place to store that kind of information is using git-notes. 
> That way, if the branch is renamed or deleted, you can easily update the old 
> notes to use the new name instead.

I can't comment on that, as I have never been using notes so far.

But I'd rather see a patch series properly implementing the always-tip
mode Ævar mentions in f030c96d86 (and which is requested by some users),
especially the interesting parts: What should git record as commit in
that case and how are "git status" and "git diff" going to handle
submodules which shall follow a specific branch. I assume "git submodule
update" is the right point in time to fetch that branch again and check
out a newer branch tip if necessary, but should that commit be added to
the superproject for that submodule automagically or not? This patch
falls short of this, as it does the easy part but not the interesting
ones ;-)
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