Pinning of submodules
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Patch to make it possible to pin submodules so that they are not affected by the --remote option in "git submodule".
Anders Ro (2):
git-submodule.sh: pin submodule when branch name is '@'
t7412: add test case for pinned submodules
Documentation/git-submodule.txt | 3 +- git-submodule.sh | 9 ++++- t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 83 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) create mode 100755 t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh
From 32b25aded0c4e30c68ac3ab75f4cbb63302ca147 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Anders Ro <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 01:39:37 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] git-submodule.sh: pin submodule when branch name is '@'
Setting branch name to '@' for a submodule will disable 'git submodule update --remote' calls for that specific submodule. I.e. instead of follow the unspecified default choice of master, nothing is being updated. This is useful when multiple submodules exist but not all should follow the remote branch head.
--- Documentation/git-submodule.txt | 3 ++- git-submodule.sh | 9 ++++++++- 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Documentation/git-submodule.txt +2 -1
@@ -289,7 +289,8 @@ OPTIONS The remote branch used defaults to `master`, but the branch name may be overridden by setting the `submodule.<name>.branch` option in either `.gitmodules` or `.git/config` (with `.git/config` taking - precedence). + precedence). Setting the branch name to the invalid branch name '@' + disables this option, i.e. pins the submodule at the recorded SHA-1. + This works for any of the supported update procedures (`--checkout`, `--rebase`, etc.). The only change is the source of the target SHA-1.
git-submodule.sh +8 -1
@@ -843,7 +843,8 @@ Maybe you want to use 'update --init'?")" die "$(eval_gettext "Unable to find current revision in submodule path '\$displaypath'")" fi - if test -n "$remote" + # Fetch latest in remote unless branch name in config is '@' + if test -n "$remote" -a "$branch" != "@" then if test -z "$nofetch" then
@@ -857,6 +858,12 @@ Maybe you want to use 'update --init'?")" die "$(eval_gettext "Unable to find current ${remote_name}/${branch} revision in submodule path '\$sm_path'")" fi + # Inform that the current sm is pinned and use of '--remote' ignored + if test -n "$remote" -a "$branch" = "@" + then + say "$(eval_gettext "Submodule path '\$displaypath' pinned, remote update ignored")" + fi + if test "$subsha1" != "$sha1" || test -n "$force" then subforce=$force
Signature · 1 line
2.1.4
From 98e6677325bada62301eba18b81f4884793d7c02 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Anders Ro <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 00:03:15 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] t7412: add test case for pinned submodules
--- t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh | 73 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 73 insertions(+) create mode 100755 t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +73 -0
73 lines not on this page · raw message
Signature · 1 line
2.1.4
Quoted 2 lines · Anders Ro
Patch to make it possible to pin submodules so that they are not affected by the --remote option in "git submodule".
Thanks for the patches. I don't use submodules, so I can't comment specifically on this change, however, I can offer some general comments on the patches. But first, a piece of advice...
Use git-send-email to post the patches as proper emails, one email per patch, rather than as attachments. Reviewers are going to want to write inline comments on the patches, and they can't do so when the patches are attachments, so attaching patches discourages reviewers from responding.
Quoted 7 lines
git-submodule.sh: pin submodule when branch name is '@'Setting branch name to '@' for a submodule will disable 'git submodule update --remote' calls for that specific submodule. I.e. instead of follow the unspecified default choice of master, nothing is being updated. This is useful when multiple submodules exist but not all should follow the remote branch head.
With the disclaimer that I'm not a submodule user (to which the answer might be obvious): What benefit is there in using a magic value like this ("@") over, say, an explicit configuration setting?
git-submodule.sh Maybe you want to use 'update --init'?")" · line 847
Quoted 13 lines
Signed-off-by Anders Ro <[email protected]>---
git-submodule.sh +2
-1@@ -843,7 +843,8 @@ Maybe you want to use 'update --init'?")" die "$(eval_gettext "Unable to find current revision in submodule path '\$displaypath'")" fi - if test -n "$remote" + # Fetch latest in remote unless branch name in config is '@' + if test -n "$remote" -a "$branch" != "@"
The -a option to 'test' is not portable[1] and is considered obsolete by POSIX[2]. Use "test foo && test bar" instead.
[1]: http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf.html#index-g_t_0040command_007btest_007d-1793
[2]: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/test.html
git-submodule.sh Maybe you want to use 'update --init'?")" · line 862
Quoted 9 lines
git-submodule.sh +2
-0then if test -z "$nofetch" then@@ -857,6 +858,12 @@ Maybe you want to use 'update --init'?")" die "$(eval_gettext "Unable to find current ${remote_name}/${branch} revision in submodule path '\$sm_path'")" fi + # Inform that the current sm is pinned and use of '--remote' ignored + if test -n "$remote" -a "$branch" = "@"
Ditto.
Quoted 17 lines
git-submodule.sh +4
-0+ then + say "$(eval_gettext "Submodule path '\$displaypath' pinned, remote update ignored")" + fi +Subject: [PATCH 2/2] t7412: add test case for pinned submodules
Signed-off-by Anders Ro <[email protected]>---
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +2
-0@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@ +#!/bin/sh +#
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh line 12
Quoted 10 lines
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +10
-0+# Copyright (c) 2015 Anders Ronnbrant +# + +test_description="Branch name '@' disables submodule update --remote calls" + +. ./test-lib.sh + +get_sha() { + cd $1 && git rev-list --max-count=1 HEAD +}
A few issues:
Indent with tabs (width 8), not spaces. (This comment applies to the entire patch).
Style for shell scripts on this project is to have a space before "()".
Taking a hint from t/test-lib-functions.sh:test_cmp_rev(), use "git rev-parse --verify" instead.
It's a bit ugly that this does "cd $1" without ever balancing it with a return to the original directory. If someone later comes along and writes:
get_sha1 fiddle >fiddle-id
in a new test, then that person will be surprised to find that the current working directory changed out from under him. The current patch doesn't experience this problem since it always invokes it as $(get_sha1 fiddle), but it could be made more robust by either wrapping it in a subshell so that the 'cd' is undone when the subshell exits, or by using "-C $1".
Taking the above comments into account:
get_sha () {
git -C "$1" rev-parse --verify HEAD
}t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh line 20
Quoted 7 lines
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +7
-0+equal_sha() { + test "$(get_sha $1)" = "$(get_sha $2)" +} + +not_equal_sha() { + test "$(get_sha $1)" != "$(get_sha $2)" +}
Style: space before "()" on these two function declarations
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh line 23
Quoted 2 lines
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +2
-0+test_expect_success 'setup submodule tree structure' ' +for i in 1 2 3; do echo file$i > file$i; git add file$i; git commit -m file$i; done &&
Style: write each command of the 'for' loop on its own line, including 'do', don't use semi-colons
Style: no space after redirection operator: >file$i
Keep the &&-chain intact, and end the chain with "|| return $?" so that the 'for' loop correctly exits if any contained command fails.
for i in 1 2 3
do
echo file$i >file$i &&
git add file$i &&
git commit -m file$i || return $?
donet/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh line 24
Quoted 1 line
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +1
-0+test_tick &&
Why is this needed? There doesn't seem to be any obvious reason for its presence, and the test still passes without it.
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh line 29
Quoted 5 lines
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +5
-0+git clone . super && +git clone . follow && +git clone . pinned && +(cd super && git submodule add -b master ../follow follow) && +(cd super && git submodule add ../pinned pinned)
Style: it's probably better to avoid aligning columns like this since it can end up being a maintenance headache, and because the line with the extensive blank span can be difficult to read in isolation.
Since both of these execute in directory 'super', this could be stated more concisely as:
(
cd super &&
git submodule add ... &&
git submodule add ...
) &&Placement of the subshell parentheses is intentional.
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh line 34
Quoted 5 lines
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +5
-0+' + +test_expect_success 'verify submodules have the same SHA' ' +equal_sha super/follow super/pinned +'
Style: indent the test body (using tab); this comment applies to the entire patch
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh line 34
Quoted 2 lines
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +2
-0+ +
Style: one blank line between tests, not two
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh line 41
Quoted 5 lines
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +5
-0+test_expect_success 'switch submodule pinned to HEAD~1 and commit super' ' +(cd super/pinned && git checkout master && git reset --hard HEAD~1) && +(cd super && git add pinned && git commit -m "Submodule pinned @ HEAD~1") && +(cd super && git submodule status) +'
Style: one command per line; format subshell as shown in above example
You can combine the two 'cd super' bits into a single subshell.
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh line 46
Quoted 5 lines
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +5
-0+ + +test_expect_success 'verify submodules not have the same SHA anymore' ' +not_equal_sha super/follow super/pinned +'
Each test should be a logical unit. In prose, you might describe a test as "set condition A, make change B, and verify that A and B resulted in some expected state".
This test is the "verify A and B" part, and the preceding test is the "set condition A, make change B" part, however, splitting them up like this makes it difficult for the reader to understand how they are related. Worse, someone may come along and insert a new test between the two, not realizing that these two tests are logically one, possibly breaking them.
Consequently, this test should be combined with the one preceding it.
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh line 51
Quoted 5 lines
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +5
-0+ + +test_expect_success 'set branch name to "@" for submodule pinned' ' +(cd super && git config --replace-all submodule.pinned.branch "@") && +test "$(cd super && git config --get submodule.pinned.branch)" = "@"
What is the last line testing? It appears to be testing the behavior of git-config, which is outside the scope of this test script.
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh line 58
Quoted 7 lines
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +7
-0+' + + +test_expect_success 'run submodule update --remote and expect no change' ' +(cd super && git submodule update --remote) && +not_equal_sha super/follow super/pinned +'
All the above comments apply here too. These two tests are logically one, thus should be combined.
Once combined, you can use test_config rather than git-config, since test_config will ensure that the config setting is undone when the test exits.
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh line 62
Quoted 4 lines
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +4
-0+ + +test_expect_success 'remove branch name "@" for submodule pinned (unpin)' ' +(cd super && git config --unset-all submodule.pinned.branch) &&
If you take the above advice and use test_config in the previous test, then this won't be needed.
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh line 63
Quoted 1 line
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +1
-0+(cd super && git config --list)
This isn't testing anything at all, but is instead merely cluttering the output (when --verbose is enabled). It looks like debugging code which should have been removed before committing.
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh line 68
Quoted 5 lines
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +5
-0+' + + +test_expect_success 'run submodule update --remote and expect same SHA1 again' ' +(cd super && git submodule update --remote) &&
For these one-line subshells, "-C super" is easier and reads better. (This comment also applies to the rest of the patch.)
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh line 68
Quoted 2 lines
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +2
-0+equal_sha super/follow super/pinned +'
This test should be combined with the previous one (although, if you follow the advice regarding the previous test, then that test will collapse to nothing...).
Quoted 5 lines
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +3
-1+ + +test_done --2.1.4
Quoted 8 lines · Eric Sunshine
Quoted 2 lines · Anders Ro
Patch to make it possible to pin submodules so that they are not affected by the --remote option in "git submodule".
Thanks for the patches. I don't use submodules, so I can't comment specifically on this change, however, I can offer some general comments on the patches. But first, a piece of advice...
Quoted 5 lines
Use git-send-email to post the patches as proper emails, one email per patch, rather than as attachments. Reviewers are going to want to write inline comments on the patches, and they can't do so when the patches are attachments, so attaching patches discourages reviewers from responding.
Thanks for the advice and the code comments, I knew I would get it wrong somehow :). I did try to follow an IMAP Gmail guide in a hurry. I'll fix the code and make sure git send-mail works the next time.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 7 lines
git-submodule.sh: pin submodule when branch name is '@'Setting branch name to '@' for a submodule will disable 'git submodule update --remote' calls for that specific submodule. I.e. instead of follow the unspecified default choice of master, nothing is being updated. This is useful when multiple submodules exist but not all should follow the remote branch head.
Quoted 5 lines
With the disclaimer that I'm not a submodule user (to which the answer might be obvious): What benefit is there in using a magic value like this ("@") over, say, an explicit configuration setting?
From what I have understood (not a submodule expert yet) the '@' is an
invalid branch name and should therefore not collide with any current branches. My idea was to disable the '--remote' option when the user have explicitly set an invalid branch name to not modify any current behaviour. Though having an explicit option is of course more clarifying. The current behaviour though is that empty branch name means "follow master" which is somewhat unintuitive.
Quoted 247 lines
git-submodule.sh Maybe you want to use 'update --init'?")" · line 847
Quoted 13 lines
Signed-off-by Anders Ro <[email protected]>---
git-submodule.sh +2
-1@@ -843,7 +843,8 @@ Maybe you want to use 'update --init'?")" die "$(eval_gettext "Unable to find current revision in submodule path '\$displaypath'")" fi - if test -n "$remote" + # Fetch latest in remote unless branch name in config is '@' + if test -n "$remote" -a "$branch" != "@"The -a option to 'test' is not portable[1] and is considered obsolete by POSIX[2]. Use "test foo && test bar" instead.
[1]: http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf.html#index-g_t_0040command_007btest_007d-1793
[2]: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/test.htmlgit-submodule.sh Maybe you want to use 'update --init'?")" · line 862
Quoted 9 lines
git-submodule.sh +2
-0then if test -z "$nofetch" then@@ -857,6 +858,12 @@ Maybe you want to use 'update --init'?")" die "$(eval_gettext "Unable to find current ${remote_name}/${branch} revision in submodule path '\$sm_path'")" fi + # Inform that the current sm is pinned and use of '--remote' ignored + if test -n "$remote" -a "$branch" = "@"Ditto.
Quoted 17 lines
git-submodule.sh +4
-0+ then + say "$(eval_gettext "Submodule path '\$displaypath' pinned, remote update ignored")" + fi +Subject: [PATCH 2/2] t7412: add test case for pinned submodules
Signed-off-by Anders Ro <[email protected]>---
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +2
-0@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@ +#!/bin/sh +#t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh line 12
Quoted 10 lines
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +10
-0+# Copyright (c) 2015 Anders Ronnbrant +# + +test_description="Branch name '@' disables submodule update --remote calls" + +. ./test-lib.sh + +get_sha() { + cd $1 && git rev-list --max-count=1 HEAD +}A few issues:
Indent with tabs (width 8), not spaces. (This comment applies to the entire patch).
Style for shell scripts on this project is to have a space before "()".
Taking a hint from t/test-lib-functions.sh:test_cmp_rev(), use "git rev-parse --verify" instead.
It's a bit ugly that this does "cd $1" without ever balancing it with a return to the original directory. If someone later comes along and writes:
get_sha1fiddle >fiddle-idin a new test, then that person will be surprised to find that the current working directory changed out from under him. The current patch doesn't experience this problem since it always invokes it as $(get_sha1 fiddle), but it could be made more robust by either wrapping it in a subshell so that the 'cd' is undone when the subshell exits, or by using "-C $1".
Taking the above comments into account:
get_sha () { git -C "$1" rev-parse --verify HEAD }t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh line 20
Quoted 7 lines
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +7
-0+equal_sha() { + test "$(get_sha $1)" = "$(get_sha $2)" +} + +not_equal_sha() { + test "$(get_sha $1)" != "$(get_sha $2)" +}Style: space before "()" on these two function declarations
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh line 23
Quoted 2 lines
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +2
-0+test_expect_success 'setup submodule tree structure' ' +for i in 1 2 3; do echo file$i > file$i; git add file$i; git commit -m file$i; done &&Style: write each command of the 'for' loop on its own line, including 'do', don't use semi-colons
Style: no space after redirection operator: >file$i
Keep the &&-chain intact, and end the chain with "|| return $?" so that the 'for' loop correctly exits if any contained command fails.
for i in 1 2 3 do echo file$i >file$i && git add file$i && git commit -m file$i || return $? donet/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh line 24
Quoted 1 line
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +1
-0+test_tick &&Why is this needed? There doesn't seem to be any obvious reason for its presence, and the test still passes without it.
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh line 29
Quoted 5 lines
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +5
-0+git clone . super && +git clone . follow && +git clone . pinned && +(cd super && git submodule add -b master ../follow follow) && +(cd super && git submodule add ../pinned pinned)Style: it's probably better to avoid aligning columns like this since it can end up being a maintenance headache, and because the line with the extensive blank span can be difficult to read in isolation.
Since both of these execute in directory 'super', this could be stated more concisely as:
( cd super && git submodule add ... && git submodule add ... ) &&Placement of the subshell parentheses is intentional.
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh line 34
Quoted 5 lines
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +5
-0+' + +test_expect_success 'verify submodules have the same SHA' ' +equal_sha super/follow super/pinned +'Style: indent the test body (using tab); this comment applies to the entire patch
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh line 34
Quoted 2 lines
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +2
-0+ +Style: one blank line between tests, not two
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh line 41
Quoted 5 lines
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +5
-0+test_expect_success 'switch submodule pinned to HEAD~1 and commit super' ' +(cd super/pinned && git checkout master && git reset --hard HEAD~1) && +(cd super && git add pinned && git commit -m "Submodule pinned @ HEAD~1") && +(cd super && git submodule status) +'Style: one command per line; format subshell as shown in above example
You can combine the two 'cd super' bits into a single subshell.
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh line 46
Quoted 5 lines
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +5
-0+ + +test_expect_success 'verify submodules not have the same SHA anymore' ' +not_equal_sha super/follow super/pinned +'Each test should be a logical unit. In prose, you might describe a test as "set condition A, make change B, and verify that A and B resulted in some expected state".
This test is the "verify A and B" part, and the preceding test is the "set condition A, make change B" part, however, splitting them up like this makes it difficult for the reader to understand how they are related. Worse, someone may come along and insert a new test between the two, not realizing that these two tests are logically one, possibly breaking them.
Consequently, this test should be combined with the one preceding it.
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh line 51
Quoted 5 lines
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +5
-0+ + +test_expect_success 'set branch name to "@" for submodule pinned' ' +(cd super && git config --replace-all submodule.pinned.branch "@") && +test "$(cd super && git config --get submodule.pinned.branch)" = "@"What is the last line testing? It appears to be testing the behavior of git-config, which is outside the scope of this test script.
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh line 58
Quoted 7 lines
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +7
-0+' + + +test_expect_success 'run submodule update --remote and expect no change' ' +(cd super && git submodule update --remote) && +not_equal_sha super/follow super/pinned +'All the above comments apply here too. These two tests are logically one, thus should be combined.
Once combined, you can use
test_configrather than git-config, sincetest_configwill ensure that the config setting is undone when the test exits.t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh line 62
Quoted 4 lines
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +4
-0+ + +test_expect_success 'remove branch name "@" for submodule pinned (unpin)' ' +(cd super && git config --unset-all submodule.pinned.branch) &&If you take the above advice and use
test_configin the previous test, then this won't be needed.t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh line 63
Quoted 1 line
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +1
-0+(cd super && git config --list)This isn't testing anything at all, but is instead merely cluttering the output (when --verbose is enabled). It looks like debugging code which should have been removed before committing.
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh line 68
Quoted 5 lines
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +5
-0+' + + +test_expect_success 'run submodule update --remote and expect same SHA1 again' ' +(cd super && git submodule update --remote) &&For these one-line subshells, "-C super" is easier and reads better. (This comment also applies to the rest of the patch.)
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh line 68
Quoted 2 lines
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +2
-0+equal_sha super/follow super/pinned +'This test should be combined with the previous one (although, if you follow the advice regarding the previous test, then that test will collapse to nothing...).
Quoted 5 lines
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +3
-1+ + +test_done --2.1.4
Quoted 14 lines · Anders Ro
Quoted 9 lines · Eric Sunshine
Quoted 7 lines · Anders Ro
git-submodule.sh: pin submodule when branch name is '@'Setting branch name to '@' for a submodule will disable 'git submodule update --remote' calls for that specific submodule. I.e. instead of follow the unspecified default choice of master, nothing is being updated. This is useful when multiple submodules exist but not all should follow the remote branch head.
Quoted 3 lines
With the disclaimer that I'm not a submodule user (to which the answer might be obvious): What benefit is there in using a magic value like this ("@") over, say, an explicit configuration setting?
Quoted 7 lines
From what I have understood (not a submodule expert yet) the '@' is an invalid branch name and should therefore not collide with any current branches. My idea was to disable the '--remote' option when the user have explicitly set an invalid branch name to not modify any current behaviour. Though having an explicit option is of course more clarifying. The current behaviour though is that empty branch name means "follow master" which is somewhat unintuitive.
My concern in asking was that some future person might come up with another scenario which also wants to use a "magic value" and would have to invent / arrive at another "illegal" representation. Hence, an explicit setting might be more appropriate. However, as stated, I don't even use submodules, so I may be far off the mark. I've cc'd a few of the submodule maintainers with the hope that they will chime in.
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 10 lines
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh line 51
Quoted 3 lines
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +3
-0+test_expect_success 'set branch name to "@" for submodule pinned' ' +(cd super && git config --replace-all submodule.pinned.branch "@") && +test "$(cd super && git config --get submodule.pinned.branch)" = "@"What is the last line testing? It appears to be testing the behavior of git-config, which is outside the scope of this test script.
Once combined, you can use
test_configrather than git-config, sincetest_configwill ensure that the config setting is undone when the test exits.
In light of this recent thread[1] which shows that test_when_finished() and, consequently, test_config() are non-functional in subshells, I have to retract the advice to use test_config() in this situation. Instead, at this time, it probably would be best to continue using "git-config" as you do here...
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh line 62
Quoted 2 lines
t/t7412-submodule-pinning.sh new file +2
-0+test_expect_success 'remove branch name "@" for submodule pinned (unpin)' ' +(cd super && git config --unset-all submodule.pinned.branch) &&If you take the above advice and use
test_configin the previous test, then this won't be needed.
and "git-config --unset-all" here.
Later, once [1] has landed in "master" (or perhaps "next"), this can be revisited and updated to use "test_config -C"[2].
[1]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/277323/focus=277370
[2]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/277323/focus=277372
Am 07.09.2015 um 01:43 schrieb Eric Sunshine:
Quoted 23 lines · Anders Ro
Quoted 14 lines · Eric Sunshine
Quoted 9 lines · Anders Ro
Quoted 7 lines
git-submodule.sh: pin submodule when branch name is '@'Setting branch name to '@' for a submodule will disable 'git submodule update --remote' calls for that specific submodule. I.e. instead of follow the unspecified default choice of master, nothing is being updated. This is useful when multiple submodules exist but not all should follow the remote branch head.
Quoted 3 lines
With the disclaimer that I'm not a submodule user (to which the answer might be obvious): What benefit is there in using a magic value like this ("@") over, say, an explicit configuration setting?
Quoted 7 lines
From what I have understood (not a submodule expert yet) the '@' is an
invalid branch name and should therefore not collide with any current branches. My idea was to disable the '--remote' option when the user have explicitly set an invalid branch name to not modify any current behaviour. Though having an explicit option is of course more clarifying. The current behaviour though is that empty branch name means "follow master" which is somewhat unintuitive.
Quoted 7 lines
My concern in asking was that some future person might come up with another scenario which also wants to use a "magic value" and would have to invent / arrive at another "illegal" representation. Hence, an explicit setting might be more appropriate. However, as stated, I don't even use submodules, so I may be far off the mark. I've cc'd a few of the submodule maintainers with the hope that they will chime in.
Added Trevor to the CC, who is the original author of --remote (see 06b1abb5b).
While I believe that adding such functionality makes perfect sense, I do not find it terribly obvious that setting the branch to '@' will make --remote skip this submodule. I wouldn't care so much if we'd only use this value internally, but this is user visible (and has to be set by the user if she wants to skip a submodule in --remote).
Setting the branch to an empty value feels a bit more natural, but I'm not so sure our config handling supports that well (we seem to assume in quite some places that empty equals unset). So I tend to prefer a new option for that.
Quoted 33 lines · Jens Lehmann
Am 07.09.2015 um 01:43 schrieb Eric Sunshine:
Quoted 32 lines
Quoted 15 lines · Anders Ro
Quoted 10 lines · Eric Sunshine
Quoted 7 lines · Anders Ro
git-submodule.sh: pin submodule when branch name is '@'Setting branch name to '@' for a submodule will disable 'git submodule update --remote' calls for that specific submodule. I.e. instead of follow the unspecified default choice of master, nothing is being updated. This is useful when multiple submodules exist but not all should follow the remote branch head.
Quoted 3 lines
With the disclaimer that I'm not a submodule user (to which the answer might be obvious): What benefit is there in using a magic value like this ("@") over, say, an explicit configuration setting?
Quoted 7 lines
From what I have understood (not a submodule expert yet) the '@' is an
invalid branch name and should therefore not collide with any current branches. My idea was to disable the '--remote' option when the user have explicitly set an invalid branch name to not modify any current behaviour. Though having an explicit option is of course more clarifying. The current behaviour though is that empty branch name means "follow master" which is somewhat unintuitive.My concern in asking was that some future person might come up with another scenario which also wants to use a "magic value" and would have to invent / arrive at another "illegal" representation. Hence, an explicit setting might be more appropriate. However, as stated, I don't even use submodules, so I may be far off the mark. I've cc'd a few of the submodule maintainers with the hope that they will chime in.
Agree this is not a "future proof" solution. Though faily a quick one. I started with a setting but realized it involved a bit more changes since you should be able to tell the submodule command to pin a submodule right from the start etc.
Quoted 10 lines
Added Trevor to the CC, who is the original author of --remote (see
06b1abb5b).While I believe that adding such functionality makes perfect sense, I do not find it terribly obvious that setting the branch to '@' will make --remote skip this submodule. I wouldn't care so much if we'd only use this value internally, but this is user visible (and has to be set by the user if she wants to skip a submodule in --remote).
Quoted 4 lines
Setting the branch to an empty value feels a bit more natural, but I'm not so sure our config handling supports that well (we seem to assume in quite some places that empty equals unset). So I tend to prefer a new option for that.
I started out that way, thinking that would solve my initial problem of having 4 submodules which should follow branch 'develop' and one submodule that should stay put until explicitly changed. Instead having empty an branch name gave me 'master' on that module, which was way off current status of the code to say the least. This was all executed by Jenkins which either gives you "update remote branches" or "not update remote branches". Thus no other choice than to change the code.
The current 'git submodule add' takes option '-b' as branch and last time I tried providing '@' as branch name it did not work. That indicates that there should be a '-p' option for pinning the submodule from the start. Having to fiddle with the .gitmodules file after the fact is not really user friendly (though it have worked for me for a while). I will have a go at an explicit setting in a week or two and get back for comments on that. Perhaps some maintainers can give some hints on adding a new option etc meanwhile. How about option '-p, ---pinned' and setting 'submodule.<branch>.pinned = true|false'?
Cleaned-up the test code according to Eric's comments, looks a bit more stylish actually :).
Quoted 19 lines · Jens Lehmann
Am 07.09.2015 um 01:43 schrieb Eric Sunshine:
Quoted 7 lines
My concern in asking was that some future person might come up with another scenario which also wants to use a "magic value" and would have to invent / arrive at another "illegal" representation. Hence, an explicit setting might be more appropriate. However, as stated, I don't even use submodules, so I may be far off the mark. I've cc'd a few of the submodule maintainers with the hope that they will chime in.
Added Trevor to the CC, who is the original author of --remote (see
06b1abb5b).While I believe that adding such functionality makes perfect sense, I do not find it terribly obvious that setting the branch to '@' will make --remote skip this submodule. I wouldn't care so much if we'd only use this value internally, but this is user visible (and has to be set by the user if she wants to skip a submodule in --remote).
Quoted 4 lines
Setting the branch to an empty value feels a bit more natural, but I'm not so sure our config handling supports that well (we seem to assume in quite some places that empty equals unset). So I tend to prefer a new option for that.
As I stare at both the code change and log message of 06b1abb5 (submodule update: add --remote for submodule's upstream changes, 2012-12-19), I cannot shake this feeling that the change to default submodule.$name.branch to 'master' is doubly misdesigned.
The stated goal of users of --remote is to declare "This submodule does not care what the top-level integrator happened to have seen at the tip when the integration of the history of submodule. It always follows the tip of a specific branch at the upstream."
If we were to use any default, the only justification would be "the users of --remote would want this mode of update to happen for all submodules, and having to specify which specific branch to be followed is too cumbersome". But if that is the case, defaulting to 'master' does not make any sense---if it defaulted to 'HEAD' for each submodule, it may have made some sense, as that is the usual convention to denote which branch is the default branch in a repository.
Also Anders' proposal refutes that "when --remote is used, all submodules should behave that way" assumption.
I wonder if it is a sensible way forward to introduce a new configuration variable 'submodule.remoteFallBackBranch' so that the users can customize this line (near l.800 in git-submodule.sh)
branch=$(get_submodule_config "$name" branch master)
The possible values for that new configuration value would be:
- an empty string: disable "update --remote" for any submodule '$name' for which submodule.$name.branch is not set.
- 'master': behave the same way as the current code; we can make this the default, when submodule.remoteFallBackBranch is unset, to ease transition.
- any user-chosen branch name. On notable example may be 'HEAD', which 06b1abb5 (submodule update: add --remote for submodule's upstream changes, 2012-12-19) should have chosen as the default.
But I am not the target audience of "update --remote", so let's hear what the real-world use cases are.