Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] doc: document --recurse-submodules for reset and restore
- From
Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com>
- Date
- Mar 22, 2020, 22:36 UTC
- Message-ID
- <298AFA4F-3D0D-46C7-872A-9B0A0F38E770@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20200320213729.571924-3-damien.olivier.robert+git@gmail.com>
Show 22 quoted lines
> Le 20 mars 2020 à 17:37, Damien Robert <damien.olivier.robert@gmail.com> a écrit : > > Signed-off-by: Damien Robert <damien.olivier.robert+git@gmail.com> > --- > Documentation/git-reset.txt | 6 ++++++ > Documentation/git-restore.txt | 10 ++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/git-reset.txt b/Documentation/git-reset.txt > index 932080c55d..c8623cfc34 100644 > --- a/Documentation/git-reset.txt > +++ b/Documentation/git-reset.txt > @@ -87,6 +87,12 @@ but carries forward unmerged index entries. > different between `<commit>` and `HEAD`. > If a file that is different between `<commit>` and `HEAD` has local > changes, reset is aborted. > + > +--[no-]recurse-submodules:: > + When the working tree is updated, using --recurse-submodules will > + also recursively reset the working tree of all active submodules > + according to the commit recorded in the superproject, also setting > + the submodules HEAD to be detached at that commit.
I *think* that should be "the submodules' HEADs" but I'd prefer that a native speaker confirm.
Show 14 quoted lines
> -- > > See "Reset, restore and revert" in linkgit:git[1] for the differences > diff --git a/Documentation/git-restore.txt b/Documentation/git-restore.txt > index 5bf60d4943..47f31d4a0f 100644 > --- a/Documentation/git-restore.txt > +++ b/Documentation/git-restore.txt > @@ -107,6 +107,16 @@ in linkgit:git-checkout[1] for details. > patterns and unconditionally restores any files in > `<pathspec>`. > > +--recurse-submodules:: > +--no-recurse-submodules:: > + If `<pathspec>` names a submodule and the restore location includes
To be consistent with patch 5, I think that should be "names an active submodule". (restore is in the unpack-trees machinery so that would be correct; I checked this behaviour).
Show 5 quoted lines
> + the working tree, the submodule will only be updated if this option > + is given, in which case its working tree will be restored to the > + commit recorded in the superproject, and any local modifications > + overwritten. If nothing (or `--no-recurse-submodules`) is used, > + the work trees of submodules will not be updated. Just like
For consistency I'd use "working trees" here also, as in the first sentence. In fact I think it would read better as "submodules working trees will not be updated".