Re: [PATCH v6 0/5] teach submodules to know they're submodules

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Feb 3, 2022, 22:39 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqczk3r2wa.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <20220203215914.683922-1-emilyshaffer@google.com>

Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com> writes:

Show 6 quoted lines

> A couple things. Firstly, a semantics change *back* to the semantics of
> v3 - we map from gitdir to gitdir, *not* from common dir to common dir,
> so that theoretically a submodule with multiple worktrees in multiple
> superproject worktrees will be able to figure out which worktree of the
> superproject it's in. (Realistically, that's not really possible right
> now, but I'd like to change that soon.)

Sounds sensible.

> Secondly, a rewording of comments and commit messages to indicate that
> this isn't a cache of some expensive operation, but rather intended to
> be the source of truth for all submodules.

I'd expect that there is a way (e.g. "git fsck") that helps the users notice when the actual filesystem layout contradicts with what the gitdir-to-gitdir link says, and repair the repositories when they go out of sync if possible.

It would be similar to "git worktree", where a link between the ".git" file that records "gitdir:" in a secondary worktree and the repository's $GIT_DIR/worktrees/*/gitdir, and the "repair" command can be used to bring them back in sync after moving the real repository without telling the secondary worktree about the move.

Show 7 quoted lines

> I did discuss Ævar's idea of relying on in-process filesystem digging to
> find the superproject's gitdir with the rest of the Google team, but in
> the end decided that there are some worries about filesystem digging in
> this way (namely, some ugly interactions with network drives that are
> actually already an issue for Googler Linux machines). Plus, the allure
> of being able to definitively know that we're a submodule is pretty
> strong.

The other side of the coin is that, even when a configuration variable says that you are a submodule of the superproject at location X, if such a submodule gets moved out of the superproject (perhaps because the end-user wanted to concentrate on that submodule project alone as an independent project) and the superproject that used to be at location X got archived away, trusting and relying on what the configuration variable says would not help us access the now-gone superproject. And that would not change no matter how strongly we declare that it is the source of truth.

Unless we have a very good way to detect inconsistency and stop spreading the damage (e.g. the setting thought our superproject sits at directory X, but that location is now occupied by a different repository that is not related), I am still skeptical about the "setting is the sole truth" design.