From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Jens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@web.de>
Cc: Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>,
Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>,
Dennis Kaarsemaker <dennis@kaarsemaker.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pathspec: adjust prefixlen after striping trailing slash
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:58:33 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqq1tjcdjfa.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5537F31D.4090704@web.de> (Jens Lehmann's message of "Wed, 22 Apr 2015 21:14:37 +0200")
Jens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@web.de> writes:
> Am 21.04.2015 um 23:08 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
>
>> I looked at the test script update. The new test does (I am
>> rephrasing to make it clearer):
>>
>> mkdir -p dir/ectory
>> git init dir/ectory ;# a new directory inside top-level project
>> (
>> cd dir/ectory &&
>> >test && git add test && git commit -m test
>> )
>> git add dir/ectory
>>
>> to set it up. At this point, the top-level index knows dir/ectory
>> is a submodule.
>>
>> Then the test goes on to turn it a non submodule by
>>
>> mv dir/ectory/.git dir/ectory/dotgit
>> ...
>
> We already do (2) in the cases you describe:
>
> $ git add subrepo/a
> fatal: Pathspec 'subrepo/a' is in submodule 'subrepo'
> $ git -C subrepo add a
> fatal: Pathspec 'a' is in submodule 'subrepo'
> ...
> So I'd vote to have (2) also for "git -C subrepo add .", which
> is what started this thread.
Does having "mv subrepo/.git subrepo/dotgit" before that "git add"
change your conclusion?
It is very clear to me that without that "mv" step, (2) is
absolutely the right thing to do, and I agree with you.
But it is unclear if we should still do (2) when "subrepo/.git" is
no longer there. That has to be done manually and it may be an
indication that is clear enough that the end user wants the
directory to be a normal directory without any submodule involved,
in which case it may match the expectation of the user better to
just nuke the corresponding 160000 entry in the index and replace it
with files in there. I dunno.
>> In my quick test, it appeared that the behaviour with this patch
>> applied was neither of the two and instead to silently do nothing,
>> and if that is the case I think it is quite wrong.
>
> Yep.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-22 19:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-04-13 16:55 assert failed in submodule edge case Dennis Kaarsemaker
2015-04-13 16:57 ` Dennis Kaarsemaker
2015-04-16 19:27 ` Jens Lehmann
2015-04-18 1:19 ` [PATCH] pathspec: adjust prefixlen after striping trailing slash Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
2015-04-19 12:53 ` Jens Lehmann
2015-04-20 1:34 ` Duy Nguyen
2015-04-20 5:37 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-04-20 5:52 ` Duy Nguyen
2015-04-21 21:08 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-04-22 19:14 ` Jens Lehmann
2015-04-22 19:58 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2015-04-22 22:32 ` Jens Lehmann
2015-04-23 3:47 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-06-14 13:16 ` Duy Nguyen
2015-06-14 21:34 ` Junio C Hamano
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=xmqq1tjcdjfa.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=Jens.Lehmann@web.de \
--cc=dennis@kaarsemaker.net \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pclouds@gmail.com \
/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.