On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> writes:
>
>> Are you saying this might be a design mistake and
>> the .update ought to be respected by all the other
>> commands? For example
>> git reset --recurse-submodules
>> should ignore the .update= none?
>
> I have been under the impression that that has been the traditional
> desire of what .update ought to mean. I personally do not have a
> strong opinion---at least not yet.
In this context note v2.14.0-rc1-34-g7463e2ec3
(bw/submodule-config-cleanup~7, "unpack-trees:
don't respect submodule.update") that is going opposite of
your impression.
>> When designing these new recursive submodule functionality
>> outside the "submodule" command, I'd want submodules
>> to behave as much as possible like trees.
>
> I think that is sensible as long as the user does not explicitly say
> "this and that submodule behave differently" by giving configuration
> variables. Perhaps .update is one of those that should countermand
> the default behaviour of "--recurse-submodules"?
Maybe, I'll think about it. However there is no such
equivalent for trees (and AFAICT never came up) to
treat a specific directory other than the rest in worktree
operations.
The problem with the issue in question is however:
git-pull is a combination of two other high level commands
(fetch/merge), the fetch component already had
a recursive behavior, and that commit in question
added a bit for the merge component, so the UX
is hard to get right for both of them:
git pull --recurse=fetch-only
git pull --recurse=merge-respects-update-strategy
is what I'd want to avoid.
So maybe we can just respect the update strategy
before starting the local part.
Stefan
