From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Heiko Voigt Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add an update=none option for 'loose' submodules Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 22:00:52 +0200 Message-ID: <20110822200052.GC11745@sandbox-rc> References: <7v8vqzreeo.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20110811195955.GA21185@book.hvoigt.net> <7vy5yujtr2.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jens Lehmann To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Aug 22 22:01:00 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qvag6-0001Oo-UN for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 22:00:59 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753363Ab1HVUAz (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:00:55 -0400 Received: from darksea.de ([83.133.111.250]:40607 "HELO darksea.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752588Ab1HVUAx (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:00:53 -0400 Received: (qmail 31583 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2011 22:00:52 +0200 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 22 Aug 2011 22:00:52 +0200 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vy5yujtr2.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 01:37:53PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Heiko Voigt writes: > > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 11:28:31AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Heiko Voigt writes: > >> > We have been talking about loose submodules for some time: > >> > >> Also before introducing a new terminology "loose submodule", please define > >> it somewhere. It feels confusing to me that a normal submodule, which > >> shouldn't be auto-cloned nor auto-updated without "submodule init", needs > >> to be called by a name other than simply a "submodule" but with an > >> adjuctive "loose submodule". > > > > Thats why I avoided talking about it in the docs. For the commit message > > I thought it would be kind of intuitive but I can update the commit > > message so that it becomes more clear. > > That sounds like a good thing to do. I discovered that I only talked in the cover letter about the term 'loose'. Since that will not go into any commit I guess we can keep the series this way? Cheers Heiko