Re: [PATCH 1/2] Rename submodule.<name>.rebase to submodule.<name>.update
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Jun 3, 2009, 02:33 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7v4ouydp0q.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <20090603001553.GB27149@dingo.bne.redhat.com>
Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> writes:
Show 18 quoted lines
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 12:59:11AM +0200, Johan Herland wrote: > ... >> diff --git a/Documentation/git-submodule.txt b/Documentation/git-submodule.txt >> index acd16ac..cd8e861 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/git-submodule.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/git-submodule.txt >> @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ update:: >> Update the registered submodules, i.e. clone missing submodules and >> checkout the commit specified in the index of the containing repository. >> This will make the submodules HEAD be detached unless '--rebase' is >> - specified or the key `submodule.$name.rebase` is set to `true`. >> + specified or the key `submodule.$name.update` is set to `rebase`. >> + >> If the submodule is not yet initialized, and you just want to use the >> setting as stored in .gitmodules, you can automatically initialize the > ... > I noticed this patch still leaves the --rebase commandline flag. Shouldn't > that be changed to --update=rebase for consistency?
If we were to add many more (I think --update=merge was mentioned, but do we have any other plausibly useful modes of operations?) options, it would make sense to support --update=rebase; my impression from the previous discussion was that rebase would make sense for more people than other modes would, so it also would make sense to keep --rebase as a shorthand, rather than forcing everybody to say --update=rebase for the sake of consistency.
You did not have to quote the whole patch to say what you wanted to say, by the way.