[sjburt]

Then the state of the superproject would depend on when the checkout occurred. That would be disastrous for consistency, you’d be unable to replicate a checkout later or elsewhere. The state of a repo after a checkout should only depend on the commit that was checked out.

[derefr]

It’s interesting that we’ve never developed the equivalent for Git of what every programming-language ecosystem has: keeping two parallel listings of dependencies, one in terms of version constraints to satisfy, and the other in terms of exact refs.

I could totally see a .gitmodules.reqs file specified in terms of semver specs against tags, or just listing a branch to check out the HEAD of; resolving to the same .gitmodules file we already have. Not even a breaking change!

[sjburt]

It would mean attaching a semantic meaning to tags, but git doesn't do that, ever, for any reference. You don't even have to have a master branch, much less tags that follow semver. Linux doesn't even use semver!

[damnyou]

Correct, this feature should be built on top of the source control system, not as part of it.

[matheusmoreira]

This is great for vendoring external dependencies that aren't under the developer's control. When the same developer is working on several related but separate projects at the same time, it's too cumbersome.

Would be nice if git submodules could also point to a branch instead of specific commits. That way, the superproject's state would not be modified every time the branch is updated.

[adrianN]

If your software is small enough that a small handful for engineers can keep the whole thing in their head, you probably don't need submodules. If you have different teams working on different parts of the project, submodules start making more sense.