revert: "ci: updated vcs import to be recursive (#6792)"

[xmfcx]

This reverts commit cfd5b33.

• Related issue: Reorganize ansible and autoware.repos for acados, tera_renderer, rust #6833

[github-actions]

Thank you for contributing to the Autoware project!

🚧 If your pull request is in progress, switch it to draft mode.

Please ensure:

• You've checked our contribution guidelines.
• Your PR follows our pull request guidelines.
• All required CI checks pass before marking the PR ready for review.

[paulsohn]

I am actually against this. Adding --recursive only for CI is totally harmless, imposes nothing to users, and can help support for future, potential submodule-based dependencies if any. Maybe documents can be reverted now.
This is different from reverting e.g. Rust - it adds to the users redundant dependencies so it is plausible to be removed once decided unnecessary.
(Although personally I would like to see real rust codes deployed into universe in the near future)

If it was never been there all along then we have no reason to eagerly add --recursive, but this time I see very few reason to eagerly remove it.

[xmfcx]

Either both docs and ci gets it, or it is removed from both ci and docs. I don't want ci-user discrepancy.

---

Adding --recursive only for CI is totally harmless

It's not harmless. If CI uses --recursive but users don't, we create a silent gap. Any dependency that accidentally relies on initialized submodules will build fine in CI and break for users. That's exactly the kind of bug that takes hours to diagnose because "it works in CI" is the first thing everyone says.

CI should mirror what users actually run. If we want --recursive everywhere, fine, but keeping it only in CI while users don't have it is worse than not having it at all.

Let's just keep things consistent and add --recursive back intentionally if and when we actually need it.

[paulsohn]

If CI uses --recursive but users don't, we create a silent gap. Any dependency that accidentally relies on initialized submodules will build fine in CI and break for users. That's exactly the kind of bug that takes hours to diagnose because "it works in CI" is the first thing everyone says.

I got your point. Let's proceed then.