On 12-12-12 05:25 PM, Jens Lehmann wrote:
>
> So unless people agree that deinit should also remove the work
> tree I'll prepare some patches teaching all git commands to
> consistently ignore deinitialized submodules. Opinions?
I agree with Trevor's suggestion that deinit should restore the user
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 03:35:59PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "W. Trevor King" writes:
>
> > Should `deinit` remove the submodule checkout, replace it with the
> > original gitlink, and clear the .git/config information then? That
> > would restore the user to the state they'd be in if they
"W. Trevor King" writes:
> Should `deinit` remove the submodule checkout, replace it with the
> original gitlink, and clear the .git/config information then? That
> would restore the user to the state they'd be in if they were never
> interested in the submodule.
AFAIU, "restore the user to the
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 02:34:47PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jens Lehmann writes:
>
> > So unless people agree that deinit should also remove the work
> > tree I'll prepare some patches teaching all git commands to
> > consistently ignore deinitialized submodules. Opinions?
>
> While I agre
Jens Lehmann writes:
> So unless people agree that deinit should also remove the work
> tree I'll prepare some patches teaching all git commands to
> consistently ignore deinitialized submodules. Opinions?
While I agree that consistency is good, "deinit" that does not
remove the working tree of
Am 12.12.2012 20:32, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> Jens Lehmann writes:
>
>> Especially as I suspect the number of submodule users having
>> customized those in .git/config is not that high ...
>
> I thought the point of "deinit" was to say "I am not interested in
> having a checkout of these submod
Jens Lehmann writes:
> Especially as I suspect the number of submodule users having
> customized those in .git/config is not that high ...
I thought the point of "deinit" was to say "I am not interested in
having a checkout of these submodules in my working tree anymore".
The user could do "rm -
Am 12.12.2012 16:08, schrieb Michael J Gruber:
> Jens Lehmann venit, vidit, dixit 04.12.2012 22:48:
>> With "git submodule init" the user is able to tell git he cares about one
>> or more submodules and wants to have it populated on the next call to "git
>> submodule update". But currently there is
Jens Lehmann venit, vidit, dixit 04.12.2012 22:48:
> With "git submodule init" the user is able to tell git he cares about one
> or more submodules and wants to have it populated on the next call to "git
> submodule update". But currently there is no easy way he could tell git he
> does not care ab
Jens Lehmann writes:
> +If you only want to remove the local checkout of a submodule from your
> +work tree without committing that use `git submodule deinit` instead
> +(see linkgit:git-submodule[1]).
I'll add a comma between "without commiting that" and "use X
instead"; it will read better, I
With "git submodule init" the user is able to tell git he cares about one
or more submodules and wants to have it populated on the next call to "git
submodule update". But currently there is no easy way he could tell git he
does not care about a submodule anymore and wants to get rid of his local
w
11 matches
Mail list logo
