John Keeping wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 10:52:50PM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
>> Sure, I'll write it out for you from an end-user perspective:
> To play Devil's Advocate for a bit...
>> 0. Great UI/UX. No more cd-to-toplevel, and a beautiful set of native
>> commands that are consistent with the overall design of git-core.
>> Which means: clone (to put something in an unstaged place), add (to
>> stage), and commit (to commit the change). There's now exactly one
>> place in your worktree (which is represented as one file in git; think
>> of it a sort of symlink) to look in for all the information. git
>> cat-link <link> to figure out its parameters, git edit-link to edit
>> its parameters: no more "find the matching pwd in .gitmodules in
>> toplevel". To remove a submodule, just git rm. And git mv works!
> Presumably now without .git/config support, so I can't override the
> checked-in settings without my own custom branch. Even carrying a dirty
> working tree seems problematic here since a checked-out link object is a
> directory, which can't have information like the remote URL in it.
Sure you can have a dirty worktree. It's just like .gitmodules:
there's zero difference but for the fact that .gitmodules is
accessible directly via your filesystem, while links are not.
>> 1. True floating submodules. You can have a submodule checked out at
>> `master` or `v3.1`: no more detached HEADs in submodules unless you
>> want fixed submodules. No additional cruft required to do the
>> floating: the information is native, in a link object.
> Can't I do that now with "submodule.<name>.branch" and "git submodule
> update --remote --rebase" and friends?
Yes, but that is not true floating: you shouldn't have to be sorry and
rebase. In new-style submodules, they're first class citizens (ie.
true): you can just replace the SHA-1 with a ref in the link.
>> 2. Initializing a nested submodule without having to initialize the
>> outer one: no more repo XML nonsense. And it's composable: you don't
>> need to put the information about all submodules in one central place.
> How does this interact when there is the following structure:
> `-- sub
> `-- subsub (specified by sub)
> and subsub is specified as a submodule in *both* super and sub but with
> different settings. Do I get different behaviour depending on $PWD?
This is a very fringe case that I haven't thought about. I don't know
how it will behave: I haven't built it yet (and don't have the entire
implementation in my head yet).
>> 3. Ability to have very many large submodule repositories without the
>> performance hit. It makes sense to block stat() from going through
>> when you have floating submodules. This means that many levels of
>> nesting are very easily possible.
> Can't I already control this to some degree? Certainly the following
> commands take different amounts of time to run:
> git status
> git -c status.submodulesummary=true status
You can't control the most fundamental thing, stat(): this is the
primary killer of performance on a large worktree. There is currently
no way to block stat(): new-style submodules offers a way to configure
which submodules to block the stat() on.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html