From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sylvain Joyeux Subject: Re: [PATCH] better git-submodule status output Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 17:00:23 +0200 Message-ID: <20080707150023.GJ3696@joyeux> References: <20080701150119.GE5852@joyeux> <7vhcb3o7q3.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20080706160758.GA23385@jhaampe.org> <20080707062142.GA5506@jhaampe.org> <32541b130807070725p6fa4d0dfne9f04bc857920dc7@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Junio C Hamano , Lars Hjemli , Ping Yin , Mark Levedahl , git@vger.kernel.org To: Avery Pennarun X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jul 07 17:01:32 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KFsDY-0004gX-4v for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:01:28 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753825AbYGGPAa (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:00:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753921AbYGGPAa (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:00:30 -0400 Received: from smtprelay11.ispgateway.de ([80.67.29.28]:48914 "EHLO smtprelay11.ispgateway.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753751AbYGGPA3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:00:29 -0400 Received: from [134.102.219.50] (helo=joyeux) by smtprelay11.ispgateway.de with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1KFsCX-0004gj-TZ; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:00:25 +0200 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <32541b130807070725p6fa4d0dfne9f04bc857920dc7@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-Df-Sender: [pbs]965142 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: > I haven't looked at your patch, so I don't know if you're calling > fetch in such a way that it doesn't update any refs. Frankly, I don't know either. But since the question is more on a design level, it does not matter for now. > Thus, I'd say the > best fix would be to find a way to have "git pull" or "git fetch" in > the supermodule also do a fetch in the submodule. I think it's fair > to expect "fetchy" operations like fetch and pull to perhaps do some > extra fetches, but not fair to expect "status" to do extra work like > that. I do agree on the principle, it is just that I don't know where to do it otherwise. Would the involved people be fine with a new "git submodule fetch" command ? > Also note that "your supermodule links to a commit that you haven't > fetched yet" is a perfectly okay state to report to the user. I might > use a "?" or something to indicate that. For now, my patch shows '!' ... But I'm open to other suggestions. Sylvain