Re: [Outreachy][PATCH v6] diff: do not show submodule with untracked files as "-dirty"

> >> * sj/untracked-files-in-submodule-directory-is-not-dirty (2020-10-26) 1 commit
> >>  - diff: do not show submodule with untracked files as "-dirty"
> >>
> >>  "git diff" showed a submodule working tree with untracked cruft as
> >>  "Submodule commit <objectname>-dirty", but a natural expectation is
> >>  that the "-dirty" indicator would align with "git describe --dirty",
> >>  which does not consider having untracked files in the working tree
> >>  as source of dirtiness.  The inconsistency has been fixed.
> >>
> >>  Needs doc update.

> > I *think* the original rationale for marking submodules with untracked
> > (_un-ignored_) files was to avoid deleting a submodule that has
> > uncommitted (because untracked) files.
>
> I agree with you that that the motivation was exactly that, but I
> have a suspicion that its execution was misguided.

>
> When one has a subdirectory D where one might or might not have an
> untracked new file that one does not want to lose, but one otherwise
> would want to clean up (perhaps an errant process created tons of
> garbage files in the directory), one would not
>
>         git diff D
>
> to see if there are important changes in that directory before doing
>
>         rm -rf D && git checkout D
>
> to bring it back to pristine state, exactly because one would not
> want to lose newly-created but not added files.  One would instead
> use
>
>         git status D
>
> for checking.  Why would a user change the habit when D happens to
> be a submodule?
>
> So I would say that "git status [D]", if it does not let the user
> notice that there is untracked contents in the submodule working
> tree, would be a bad idea.  "git diff" that ignores untracked paths
> in the submodule working tree, on the other hand, is a good thing.
>
> Now, the patch as-is may change the behaviour of "git status D" in
> this case, and the internal invocation of diff-files made somewhere
> in wt-status.c may have to be adjusted to keep such a submodule with
> forgotten newly created files shown as modified.
>
> Further discussion on this should be done on the original review
> thread for continuity, not here, in any case.
>