Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] git clone: Marry --recursive and --reference
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Aug 9, 2016, 18:44 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqq8tw5aijv.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAGZ79kY8EiGaugsh4FxKYp1FxqYr10JfGqsrfsnhULB+OBnFXw@mail.gmail.com>
Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:
Show 5 quoted lines
> The way I understood and implemented it is > > here is a path, try to use it as an alternate; if that is not > an alternate, it's fine too; maybe warn about it, but carry > on with the operation.
My expectation is without "maybe warn about it". And not adding it as an alternate (because it is not usable) is just "doing as I was told to do", nothing noteworthy. Because "do it only if you can" is an explicit instruction to the doer that the caller does not care about the outcome, I'd think there shouldn't be any warning, whether it is used or not. At the same time, if the caller wants to know the outcome, and using if-able as a way to say "I prefer to see it happen, but you do not have to panic if you can't", I'd think it is OK to give "info:" to report which of the two possible paths was taken in either case. Throwing a "warning:" only when it didn't do so does not make much sense to me.
Show 5 quoted lines
> The way you write this response I think you have a slightly > different understanding of what the -if-able ought to do? > > When --reference is given, only the superproject should > borrow and the -if-able, may allow submodules to also borrow?
I have no idea what this sentence means.
Show 8 quoted lines
>> I have a very strong opinion what should happen when the end-user >> facing command is "git submodule", but if I have to choose, I would >> prefer to see "git submodule update" tell what it did with "info:" >> either case, i.e. "info: borrowing from ... because the superproject >> borrows from there", and "info: not borrowing from ... even though >> the superproject borrows from there". > > I see. This way the user is most informed.
Yes, and if we were to go that route, "clone" without "-v" should not report which of the two it took. It is OK for "submodule" to look at what "clone" left as the result and do more intelligent reporting that is better suited for the context of the command.
Show 16 quoted lines
> The current implementation > of "submodule update --init" for start from scratch yields for example: > > Submodule 'foo' (<url>) registered for path 'foo' > Submodule 'hooks' (<url>) registered for path 'hooks' > Cloning into '/home/sbeller/super/foo'... > Cloning into '/home/sbeller/super/hooks'... > warning: Not using proposed alternate > /home/sbeller/super-reference/.git/modules/hooks/ > Submodule path 'foo': checked out '7b41f3a413b46140b050ae5324cbbcdd467d2b3a' > Submodule path 'hooks': checked out '3acc14d10d26678eae6489038fe0d4dad644a9b4' > > so before this series we had 3 lines per submodule, and with this series > we get a 4th line for the unusual case. > > You would prefer to see always 4 lines per submodule?
If the user says "--recursive --reference", then the user probably deserves to be notified. As I said (eh, rather, as I wanted to say but failed to say so), I do not have a strong preference either way.