Re: [PATCH 1/3] git-submodule: allow submodule name and path to differ

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

On Sat, 9 Jun 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

Lars Hjemli [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

This teaches git-submodule to check module.*.path when looking for the 
config for a submodule path. If no match is found it falls back to the 
current behaviour (module.$path).

I have a feeling that it might be much less troublesome in the longer 
term to admit that module.$path was a mistake and support only one 
format; wouldn't trying to support both leave ambiguity and confusion?

Just my 2cents: git-submodule is not yet in any released version. So let's 
fix things early. In our world, it's not like you lose face when you have 
to admit mistakes. (Instead, you lose face when you refuse to fix them.) 
Ah, if only politics learnt from our world...

Well, I completely agree with what you said up to "So let's fix
things early.", but when I re-read what I wrote, I realize that
my wording was bad --- I did not mean to drive the discussion in
that direction.

It was not Lars's *mistake* to admit to begin with.  His was one
valid design that was consistent within his patch series.  The
thing is that there just was a better alternative suggested
later; it does not make the first iteration a mistake in any
way.

So, Lars, my apologies if I offended you -- I did not mean it
that way.

On 6/10/07, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Sat, 9 Jun 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

Lars Hjemli [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

This teaches git-submodule to check module.*.path when looking for the
config for a submodule path. If no match is found it falls back to the
current behaviour (module.$path).

I have a feeling that it might be much less troublesome in the longer
term to admit that module.$path was a mistake and support only one
format; wouldn't trying to support both leave ambiguity and confusion?

Just my 2cents: git-submodule is not yet in any released version. So let's
fix things early. In our world, it's not like you lose face when you have
to admit mistakes. (Instead, you lose face when you refuse to fix them.)
Ah, if only politics learnt from our world...

Well, I completely agree with what you said up to "So let's fix
things early.", but when I re-read what I wrote, I realize that
my wording was bad --- I did not mean to drive the discussion in
that direction.

It was not Lars's *mistake* to admit to begin with.  His was one
valid design that was consistent within his patch series.  The
thing is that there just was a better alternative suggested
later; it does not make the first iteration a mistake in any
way.

So, Lars, my apologies if I offended you -- I did not mean it
that way.

No need for apologies, no offence taken :)

-- 
larsh