Martin Waitz wrote: > hoi :) > > On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 02:05:33PM +0100, sf wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 01:09:49PM +0100, sf wrote: >>>> Martin Waitz wrote: >>>>> So you not only store your submodule HEAD commit in the supermodule >>>>> when you do commit to the supermodule, it also means that your >>>>> submodule HEAD will be updated when you update your supermodule. >>>> Why the magic? The typical workflow in git is >>>> >>>> 1. You work on a branch, i.e. edit and commit and so on. >>>> 2. At some point, you decide to share the work you did on that branch >>>> (e-mail a patch, merge into another branch, push upstream or let it by >>>> pulled by upstream) >>> 3. Other people want to use your new work. >> Sorry, if that was not obvious: You actually procceed with one of the >> options I listed in Step 2. What I wanted to state is that with git you >> do not mix up committing (which is local to your repository and your >> branch) and publishing. > > I guess you are refering to not mix up committing to the submodule and > updating the supermodule index. > These are really two separate steps, I just combined them above because I > wanted to put emphasis on the other part: it is not a one-way flow, it > is bidirectional, so your HEAD would have to changed if the supermodule > gets updated. > And I consider changing HEAD, without looking at the branch it points > to, to be a bad thing. > So a commit in the supermodule turns into a commit in the submodule? That's just plain wrong. If it doesn't, why would the submodule HEAD have to change? -- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlReceived on Sat Dec 02 00:43:25 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-12-02 00:50:06 EST