Web lists-archives.com

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] change submodule push test to use proper repository setup

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> So you propose to make git-add behave like "git submodule add"
>> (i.e. also add the .gitmodules entry for name/path/URL), which I
>> like from a submodule perspective.
>> However other users of gitlinks might be confused[1], which is why
>> I refrained from "making every gitlink into a submodule". Specifically
>> the more powerful a submodule operation is (the more fluff adds),
>> the harder it should be for people to mis-use it.
> A few questions that come to mind are:
>  - Does "git add sub/" have enough information to populate
>    .gitmodules?  If we have reasonable "default" values for
>    .gitmodules entries (e.g. missing URL means we won't fetch when
>    asked to go recursively fetch), perhaps we can leave everything
>    other than "submodule.$name.path" undefined.

I think we would want to populate path and URL only.

>  - Can't we help those who have gitlinks without .gitmodules entries
>    exactly the same way as above, i.e. when we see a gitlink and try
>    to treat it as a submodule, we'd first try to look it up from
>    .gitmodules (by going from path to name and then to
>    submodule.$name.$var); the above "'git add sub/' would add an
>    entry for .gitmodules" wish is based on the assumption that there
>    are reasonable "default" values for each of these $var--so by
>    basing on the same assumption, we can "pretend" as if these
>    submodule.$name.$var were in .gitmodules file when we see
>    gitlinks without .gitmodules entries.  IOW, if "git add sub/" can
>    add .gitmodules to help people without having to type "git
>    submodule add sub/", then we can give exactly the same degree of
>    help without even modifying .gitmodules when "git add sub/" is
>    run.

I do not understand the gist of this paragraph, other then:

  "When git-add <repository> encounters a section submodule.<name>.*,
   do not modify it; We can assume it is sane already."

>  - Even if we could solve it with "git add sub/" that adds to
>    .gitmodules, is it a good solution, when we can solve the same
>    thing without having to do so?

I am confused even more.

So you suggest that "git add [--gitlink=submodule]" taking on the
responsibilities of "git submodule add" is a bad idea?

I thought we had the same transition from "git remote update" to
"git fetch", which eventually superseded the former.