From: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
To: git@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>,
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
markus.heidelberg@web.de,
Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Subject: Re: git submodule update --merge (Was: What's cooking in git.git (May 2009, #02; Sun, 17))
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 13:59:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200905251359.37619.johan@herland.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200905191526.40471.johan@herland.net>
On Tuesday 19 May 2009, Johan Herland wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 May 2009, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 May 2009, Johan Herland wrote:
> > > I still don't see any reason why one should be added (--rebase),
> > > and not the other (--merge).
> >
> > When you rebase, you see your personal stuff (i.e. stuff that you
> > do not want to submit, or not in its current form, or that you
> > submitted and it waits for inclusion) on top of things right away.
>
> But if there are developers downstream whose work is based on your
> submodule branch, the rebase will disrupt _their_ work, in the same
> way that rebasing any other public branch would disrupt people's
> work.
>
> > In contrast, if you merge, you will have a different state from the
> > upstream _forever_. Even if your stuff gets included.
>
> Correct, but there are cases where reconciliation with the upstream
> repo is less important than not disrupting downstream developers (see
> below).
>
> > Needless to say, I do not see much use for the latter case, but
> > tons for the former.
>
> I fully agree that for a regular downstream (or "leaf") developer,
> there is not much use for git submodule rebase --merge.
>
> But not all developers fit nicely into your scenario above.
>
> [Workflow description in which "git submodule update --merge" would
> be a helpful addition]
>
> I understand that the above scenario is not common in the free
> software world, but I believe it is much more common in an
> enterprise/company setting. Therefore, the support of such workflows
> is important to companies that are currently considering (or have
> already chosen) Git. I believe there is value in supporting such
> workflows, especially when doing so is as straightforward as my patch
> shows.
I haven't received any replies to my attempt to describe the context in
which "git submodule update --merge" is useful. A hint as to whether my
argument is valid, or just crap, would be nice.
In any case, even if we don't include "git submodule update --merge",
could we _please_ consider changing the associated config variable from
submodule.<name>.rebase = true/false (false if unset)
to something like
submodule.<name>.update = checkout/rebase (checkout if unset)
or (Junio's suggestion)
submodule.<name>.rebind = never/rebase (never if unset)
so that we at least have the _option_ of adding other alternatives in
the future?
Have fun! :)
...Johan
--
Johan Herland, <johan@herland.net>
www.herland.net
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-25 12:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-17 8:05 What's cooking in git.git (May 2009, #02; Sun, 17) Junio C Hamano
2009-05-17 9:45 ` Jakub Narebski
2009-05-17 17:58 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-05-17 18:27 ` Jakub Narebski
2009-05-17 11:41 ` David Aguilar
2009-05-18 13:36 ` Johan Herland
2009-05-18 19:40 ` Markus Heidelberg
2009-05-18 21:55 ` Johan Herland
2009-05-19 0:35 ` [PATCH] git-submodule: add support for --merge Johan Herland
2009-05-19 1:33 ` What's cooking in git.git (May 2009, #02; Sun, 17) Junio C Hamano
2009-05-19 7:23 ` Johan Herland
2009-05-19 8:17 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-05-19 8:45 ` Johan Herland
2009-05-19 11:53 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-05-19 13:26 ` git submodule update --merge (Was: What's cooking in git.git (May 2009, #02; Sun, 17)) Johan Herland
2009-05-25 11:59 ` Johan Herland [this message]
2009-05-25 18:33 ` git submodule update --merge Junio C Hamano
2009-05-25 18:57 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-05-25 19:04 ` Avery Pennarun
2009-05-25 19:54 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-05-25 22:48 ` Johan Herland
2009-05-25 22:10 ` Johan Herland
2009-05-25 23:15 ` git submodule update --merge (Was: What's cooking in git.git (May 2009, #02; Sun, 17)) Peter Hutterer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200905251359.37619.johan@herland.net \
--to=johan@herland.net \
--cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=markus.heidelberg@web.de \
--cc=peter.hutterer@who-t.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.