Re: Re: [RFC v2] submodule: Respect requested branch on all clones

2014/1/8 W. Trevor King [off-list ref]:

I also prefer 'checkout' to 'head', because 'checkout'
already exists in non-submodule Git for switching between local
branches.

Reasons I would loosely support 'git submodule checkout'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)  It's true that 'git submodule checkout' would also often run 'git checkout'.

Reasons, as an user, I seriously would *not* like 'git submodule checkout'
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) 'git submodule checkout' would also touch '.git/config' and
'.gitmodules', and I don't like much the idea of a 'checkout' command
touching config files. It looks dirty.
2) Having 'git checkout', 'git checkout --recurse-submodules' and
finally 'git submodule checkout' is too much for me.

Also, in my proposal, 'git submodule [tobedecided] --attach' would
also merge orphaned commits by default, and 'checkout' is not about
merge.

Reasons I would fervently support 'git submodule head'
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) It tells immediately that this command is about HEAD of the
submodule, and will take care of it. Newcomers would loveit if they
don't like their HEAD state;
2) "head" is unspecific enough to admit it can also touch
'.git/config' and '.gitmodules'.

Said this, it seems Heiko[1] proposed a similar syntax and the only
difference was about names, not behavior of the command to be added
(if we eventually take this path, ofc).

On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 01:17:49AM +0100, Francesco Pretto wrote:

quoted

# Attach the submodule HEAD to <branch>.
# Also set ".git/config" 'submodule.<module>.branch' to <branch>
$ git submodule head -b <branch> --attach <module>

I prefer submodule.<name>.local-branch for the submodule's local
branch name.

I think this was still part of your original misunderstanding about my
"git submodule head". This command would touch 'branch' property
anyway because '-b <branch>' would still be the remote branch, even in
the case you have a 'local-branch' property (maybe to be coupled here
with a --local-branch <local-branch> switch).

Greetings,
Francesco

[1] http://marc.info/?l=git&m=138913435216349&w=2