3 ms·

> The trick is to only work with submodule refs during any sort of complex series of commands, then update the submodules once all of the ref munging is done.

> The trick is to only work with submodule refs during any sort of complex series of commands, then update the submodules once all of the ref munging is done. So you don't actually check out the submodule, ok. But this means you can't actually use the correct submodule commit during the rebase? Like trying to build with it to check if it works before continuing? > Nope, though admittedly the commands need some polish here. Worst case, remove the directory in the working tree, remove the entry from .gitmodules, delete .git/module/x/y/z/, then add -A the now-deleted worktree path and your .gitmodules. How do you admit this and yet simultaneously say "I don't know why people raise such a stink about them" and "Not once have had issues with them"? You somehow know there are pain points, you know the various workarounds which can consist of N hoops to jump through, and yet you claim you haven't encountered issues even once and don't even understand what people dislike about submodules? Aren't these clearly contradictory? > Not since I sat down and read through the concepts section on the official Git docs, which outline what e.g. objects, trees, commits, tags and refs were, no. I'm pretty sure I know what all of those are and still find submodules painful.

junon 6y ago
> But this means you can't actually use the correct submodule commit during the rebase? You can update during an interactive rebase if you need to, why not? I've never personally needed this but given how rebases work then an update should be possible if you need to. > How do you admit this and yet simultaneously say "I don't know why people raise such a stink about them" Because the lack of a simple removal command does not warrant the "avoid submodules at all costs" sentiment currently the top voted comment on this thread. > You somehow know there are pain points, you know the various workarounds which can consist of N hoops to jump through, There are places to improve commands. That's it. And the only hoop I have to jump through is a removal of a stubborn submodule the need arises. > Aren't these clearly contradictory? No. The world isn't a dichotomy; both things can be true. > I'm pretty sure I know what all of those are and still find submodules painful. A submodule is just a ref, just like a tag. Init and deinit can be finicky, that's about it. If you fully understood refs, then submodules shouldn't be that difficult to reason about. What, specifically, do you find "painful"?
- dataflow 6y ago
  > You can update during an interactive rebate if you need to, why not? You said your "trick" is to explicitly not update the submodules until you've finished the rebase? By definition that means you're not updating the submodules during the rebase... > Because the lack of a simple removal command does not warrant the "avoid submodules at all costs" sentiment currently the top voted comment on this thread. It's not just removal, though removal is definitely a big chunk of it. See last paragraph. > No. The world isn't a dichotomy; both things can be true. The world isn't a dichotomy, but you "admit the commands need some polish" and then propose a 4-step workaround for issues you've "not once had"? Did you not encounter issues at some point to lead you to propose workarounds and conclude commands need polishing? > A submodule is just a ref, just like a tag. Init and deinit can be finicky, that's about it. If you fully understood refs, then submodules shouldn't be that difficult to reason about. What, specifically, do you find "painful"? I don't think you understand how annoying it is for submodules not to add/remove/update seamlessly. Maybe you only use submodules for your own personal projects and rarely modify them so you rarely see the effect. But especially in a team project that's evolving constantly and the submodules aren't frozen, and especially in projects where you have to go mess with your own submodules to figure out if to-be-proposed changes to dependencies will actually do what you want, having to constantly go out of your way to make sure everything is committed and synced properly every single time you check out a new commit gets annoying fast. Especially when you don't even know what commits contain submodule changes to begin with.
  - junon 6y ago
    You're assuming a lot about me so I don't really feel like spending time answering in depth. You seem to hold a strong opinion you're not willing to change, and while that's fine, I don't appreciate being told I'm somehow not qualified to have a differing opinion when that is very clearly not the case. > You said your "trick" is to explicitly not update the submodules until you've finished the rebase? By definition that means you're not updating the submodules during the rebase... A "trick", not a rule. If you need to check submodules during an interactive rebase, fine, do it. Nothing is stopping you, and it should work fine. > The world isn't a dichotomy, but you "admit the commands need some polish" and then propose a 4-step workaround for issues you've "not once had"? Did you not encounter issues at some point to lead you to propose workarounds and conclude commands need polishing? For 1 issue, of which I feel could definitely have a better command. You're arguing semantics at this point. I've not had issues where I'm so stuck they're impossible to use or to fix, like so many others here claim they do. > I don't think you understand how annoying it is for submodules not to add/remove/update seamlessly. I don't think you understand how submodules work, at all. > Maybe you only use submodules for your own personal projects and rarely modify them so you rarely see the effect. You assume incorrectly. > But especially in a team project . . . and . . . projects where you have to go mess with your own submodules . . . having to constantly go out of your way to make sure everything is committed and synced . . . single time you check out a new commit You're using submodules incorrectly, then. Learn what worktrees are if you don't. Learn what directory remotes are. Learn how to use multiple remotes, even. None of what you're saying is a result of bad Git design. It's a result of you not knowing how Git works, or how to use it effectively. Git gives you all of the tools to use submodules effectively (e.g. testing changes without commiting, or testing changes directly in a submodule, etc.) Do not patronize me because I RTFM.

junon 6y ago

> But this means you can't actually use the correct submodule commit during the rebase? You can update during an interactive rebase if you need to, why not? I've never personally needed this but given how rebases work then an update should be possible if you need to. > How do you admit this and yet simultaneously say "I don't know why people raise such a stink about them" Because the lack of a simple removal command does not warrant the "avoid submodules at all costs" sentiment currently the top voted comment on this thread. > You somehow know there are pain points, you know the various workarounds which can consist of N hoops to jump through, There are places to improve commands. That's it. And the only hoop I have to jump through is a removal of a stubborn submodule the need arises. > Aren't these clearly contradictory? No. The world isn't a dichotomy; both things can be true. > I'm pretty sure I know what all of those are and still find submodules painful. A submodule is just a ref, just like a tag. Init and deinit can be finicky, that's about it. If you fully understood refs, then submodules shouldn't be that difficult to reason about. What, specifically, do you find "painful"?

dataflow 6y ago
> You can update during an interactive rebate if you need to, why not? You said your "trick" is to explicitly not update the submodules until you've finished the rebase? By definition that means you're not updating the submodules during the rebase... > Because the lack of a simple removal command does not warrant the "avoid submodules at all costs" sentiment currently the top voted comment on this thread. It's not just removal, though removal is definitely a big chunk of it. See last paragraph. > No. The world isn't a dichotomy; both things can be true. The world isn't a dichotomy, but you "admit the commands need some polish" and then propose a 4-step workaround for issues you've "not once had"? Did you not encounter issues at some point to lead you to propose workarounds and conclude commands need polishing? > A submodule is just a ref, just like a tag. Init and deinit can be finicky, that's about it. If you fully understood refs, then submodules shouldn't be that difficult to reason about. What, specifically, do you find "painful"? I don't think you understand how annoying it is for submodules not to add/remove/update seamlessly. Maybe you only use submodules for your own personal projects and rarely modify them so you rarely see the effect. But especially in a team project that's evolving constantly and the submodules aren't frozen, and especially in projects where you have to go mess with your own submodules to figure out if to-be-proposed changes to dependencies will actually do what you want, having to constantly go out of your way to make sure everything is committed and synced properly every single time you check out a new commit gets annoying fast. Especially when you don't even know what commits contain submodule changes to begin with.
- junon 6y ago
  You're assuming a lot about me so I don't really feel like spending time answering in depth. You seem to hold a strong opinion you're not willing to change, and while that's fine, I don't appreciate being told I'm somehow not qualified to have a differing opinion when that is very clearly not the case. > You said your "trick" is to explicitly not update the submodules until you've finished the rebase? By definition that means you're not updating the submodules during the rebase... A "trick", not a rule. If you need to check submodules during an interactive rebase, fine, do it. Nothing is stopping you, and it should work fine. > The world isn't a dichotomy, but you "admit the commands need some polish" and then propose a 4-step workaround for issues you've "not once had"? Did you not encounter issues at some point to lead you to propose workarounds and conclude commands need polishing? For 1 issue, of which I feel could definitely have a better command. You're arguing semantics at this point. I've not had issues where I'm so stuck they're impossible to use or to fix, like so many others here claim they do. > I don't think you understand how annoying it is for submodules not to add/remove/update seamlessly. I don't think you understand how submodules work, at all. > Maybe you only use submodules for your own personal projects and rarely modify them so you rarely see the effect. You assume incorrectly. > But especially in a team project . . . and . . . projects where you have to go mess with your own submodules . . . having to constantly go out of your way to make sure everything is committed and synced . . . single time you check out a new commit You're using submodules incorrectly, then. Learn what worktrees are if you don't. Learn what directory remotes are. Learn how to use multiple remotes, even. None of what you're saying is a result of bad Git design. It's a result of you not knowing how Git works, or how to use it effectively. Git gives you all of the tools to use submodules effectively (e.g. testing changes without commiting, or testing changes directly in a submodule, etc.) Do not patronize me because I RTFM.