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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).