Re: [PATCH] recursive submodules: detach HEAD from new state

From: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Date: Nov 21, 2017, 23:00 UTC
Message-ID: <CAGZ79kbNwV5dg2raUu4SZRWsocpXr7xtgDuyyQ+gVcPFQWfKjg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20171121224709.GJ3429@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 24 quoted lines

> Hi,
>
> Stefan Beller wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Stefan, do you know what thread I should look at to find the current
>>> state of this patch?  I've had it applied locally for a long time.
>>
>> It was "Undecided" for some time, then Junio kicked it back to pu, expecting a
>> reroll[1]. The "send out a plan" that was referenced is found in [2]
>> describing 6 plans for the future of submodules. The approach in [3]
>> which is different on the implementation level, but very similar on
>> the UX level sounds best currently.  I'll coordinate with JTan to
>> come up with patches for that.
>>
>> [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/CAGZ79kYUZv0g+3OEMrbT26A7mSLJzeS-yf5Knr-CnARHqVB=aQ@mail.gmail.com/
>> [2] https://public-inbox.org/git/20171109001007.11894-1-sbeller@google.com/
>> [3] https://public-inbox.org/git/20171108172945.33c42a0e91b4ac494217b788@google.com/
>
> Thanks.  That thread appears to be about a long-term plan; what is the
> short-term plan?
>
> E.g. is there any additional documentation that should be added to the
> patch that detaches?

The second patch in that series has a tiny bit of information, see "Documentation/checkout: clarify submodule HEADs to be detached".

I would think that this is sufficient for the short term to get into a safe state.

> Or should it go in as-is?

That is what I would prefer and then we'll build on top of this once we figured out the direction of the long term solution.

Thanks, Stefan