From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.176.0/21 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 From: Andreas Ericsson Subject: Re: [RFC] Submodules in GIT Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 11:42:47 +0100 Message-ID: <45754D27.9070701@op5.se> References: <20061130170625.GH18810@admingilde.org> <4570AF8F.1000801@stephan-feder.de> <4570BFA4.8070903@stephan-feder.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:42:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Linus Torvalds , sf-gmane@stephan-feder.de, sf , git@vger.kernel.org, Martin Waitz Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060913) In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by dough.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1GrXlE-00028k-GL for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 05 Dec 2006 11:42:52 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S937498AbWLEKmu (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Dec 2006 05:42:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S937499AbWLEKmu (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Dec 2006 05:42:50 -0500 Received: from linux-server1.op5.se ([193.201.96.2]:57057 "EHLO smtp-gw1.op5.se" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S937498AbWLEKmt (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Dec 2006 05:42:49 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.20] (unknown [213.88.215.14]) by smtp-gw1.op5.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC7E06BCBE; Tue, 5 Dec 2006 11:42:47 +0100 (CET) To: Torgil Svensson Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Torgil Svensson wrote: > On 12/4/06, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> >> So yeah, it's a bit hacky, but for the reasons I've tried to outline, I >> actually think that users _want_ hacky. Exactly because "deep >> integration" >> ends up having so many _bad_ features, so it's better to have a thin and >> simple layer that you can actually see past if you want to. > > Thin and simple sounds very good. Let's try it with an example. Lets > say we have one apllication App1 and three librarys (Lib1, Lib2, Lib3) > with the following dependency-graph: > > App1 > /\ > / \ > Lib1 Lib2 > \ / > \ / > Lib3 (don't really needed for this example but looks nice) > > All components can be used individually and have their own upstream, > maintainer etc. > > To compile App1 however, I need some files from both Lib1 and Lib2 > specifying it's API. To satisfy these dependencies, It sounds > reasonable to link Lib2 and Lib3 submodules from App1. In your > concept, can I construct a modules file to fetch the API files and > their history without checking out the whole Lib1 and Lib2 source? I think not. Then it wouldn't be a submodule anymore, but just some random sources from an upstream project. Not that it's an uncommon workflow or anything, but it's sort of akin to just importing the SHA1 implementation (a few source-files with no real interest in the history of those source-files) from openssl into a different project rather than actually using the entire openssl lib (which would be nice to have as a submodule). -- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se