Martin Waitz wrote:
quoted text
> 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.html