From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Lehmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Teach fetch/pull the on-demand mode and make it the default Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 00:35:13 +0100 Message-ID: <4D6ED431.6090300@web.de> References: <4D6D7A50.5090802@web.de> <4D6E6BB9.9000904@xiplink.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Git Mailing List , Junio C Hamano , Jonathan Nieder To: Marc Branchaud X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Mar 03 00:35:24 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 1PuvZi-0001X0-Mf for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Thu, 03 Mar 2011 00:35:23 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754973Ab1CBXfP (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2011 18:35:15 -0500 Received: from fmmailgate03.web.de ([217.72.192.234]:56483 "EHLO fmmailgate03.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754771Ab1CBXfP (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2011 18:35:15 -0500 Received: from smtp03.web.de ( [172.20.0.65]) by fmmailgate03.web.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C329C18987B41; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 00:35:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from [93.240.114.148] (helo=[192.168.178.43]) by smtp03.web.de with asmtp (WEB.DE 4.110 #2) id 1PuvZZ-0001va-00; Thu, 03 Mar 2011 00:35:13 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; de; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 In-Reply-To: <4D6E6BB9.9000904@xiplink.com> X-Sender: Jens.Lehmann@web.de X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX183UdkEJT3xhnOE7VzdfwPBvNK42kdAqgznFG2T pSAfidFL3UwDl0TG1E+CUFTs2Gi5XomyRfSphBODaDy9wLBMHZ pva9ebXTA4C2kMobhtsw== Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Am 02.03.2011 17:09, schrieb Marc Branchaud: > On 11-03-01 05:59 PM, Jens Lehmann wrote: >> *) Should this option be called "on-demand" or "changed" or maybe even >> "updated"? >> I have no strong feelings about this, me just thinks the name should >> tell somehow that only submodules where new commits are recorded in >> the superproject which aren't already present locally will be fetched. >> Opinions? > > First, thanks again for this work! Thanks for your feedback on this series, I'll include that in v3. > I have a slight preference for "updated" or "updated-only", but no really > strong feelings either way. I'm looking forward to hear what others think ...