Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] change submodule push test to use proper repository setup

> Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:
> 
> > So you propose to make git-add behave like "git submodule add"
> > (i.e. also add the .gitmodules entry for name/path/URL), which I
> > like from a submodule perspective.
> >
> > However other users of gitlinks might be confused[1], which is why
> > I refrained from "making every gitlink into a submodule". Specifically
> > the more powerful a submodule operation is (the more fluff adds),
> > the harder it should be for people to mis-use it.
> 
> A few questions that come to mind are:
> 
>  - Does "git add sub/" have enough information to populate
>    .gitmodules?  If we have reasonable "default" values for
>    .gitmodules entries (e.g. missing URL means we won't fetch when
>    asked to go recursively fetch), perhaps we can leave everything
>    other than "submodule.$name.path" undefined.

>  - Can't we help those who have gitlinks without .gitmodules entries
>    exactly the same way as above, i.e. when we see a gitlink and try
>    to treat it as a submodule, we'd first try to look it up from
>    .gitmodules (by going from path to name and then to
>    submodule.$name.$var); the above "'git add sub/' would add an
>    entry for .gitmodules" wish is based on the assumption that there
>    are reasonable "default" values for each of these $var--so by
>    basing on the same assumption, we can "pretend" as if these
>    submodule.$name.$var were in .gitmodules file when we see
>    gitlinks without .gitmodules entries.  IOW, if "git add sub/" can
>    add .gitmodules to help people without having to type "git
>    submodule add sub/", then we can give exactly the same degree of
>    help without even modifying .gitmodules when "git add sub/" is
>    run.