Re: tracking submodules out of main directory.

[Jens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@web.de>]

Am 04.08.2011 00:29, schrieb henri GEIST:
> Le mercredi 03 août 2011 à 23:30 +0200, Jens Lehmann a écrit :
>> Am 03.08.2011 21:41, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
>>> Jens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@web.de> writes:
>> But when you fetch a new version of Gimp into your submodule, it would be
>> really nice if the superproject could be notified that the Gimp developers
>> updated to 1.2.4 of Glib and inform you that an update of Glib might be
>> appropriate. That could avoid having you to dig through compiler errors to
>> find out that the new foobar() function from Glib 1.2.4 is needed (and if
>> you need to pull in a bugfix in Glib, you might notice that *a lot* later
>> when you forget to do that).
>>
> 
> Exact, I am really happy to read this.
> And better do not bother to have the suproject.

I don't get this, you can't get rid of the superproject.

> cd to gimp directory, type git status it can tell you every thing and
> when your satisfied you just have to type make.
> At this point the superproject have not any use. 

"git status" inside the submodule won't tell you anything about the
dependencies, but a "git status" in the superproject should. The submodule
shouldn't know where exactly the submodules it depends on lives, that is
the decision of the superproject, not the submodule.

>>>> In addition to that, it can (but mustn't) specify any of the following:
>>>
>>> I am guessing you meant "does not have to", instead of mustn't, here...
>>
>> Sure, thanks for deciphering that.
>>
>>>> a) Of this submodule "foo" I need at least that version because I won't
>>>>    compile/work with older versions of that. (this can be tightened to
>>>>    "exactly that version" to give henri the behavior he wants, but that
>>>>    should be policy, not mandatory)
>>>
>>> The "loose collection of projects" approach like that has its uses, and it
>>> is called "repo". Why re-invent it? The behaviour Henri wants to specify
>>> the exact version is how git submodules work already, so I do not see
>>> there is anything to be done here.
>>
>> Let me make this clear: this is not about changing how submodules are
>> committed in a superproject. It is not about having a loose collection of
>> projects, they stay tied together in a defined state by the superproject.
>>
> 
> Yes but for me, from when I started this this topic, it was all about
> having a loose collection of project with dependency references between
> them. And get rid of the superproject.
> It is my first and only goal.

But I fail to see how that would improve anything.

>> Henri wanted it a bit upside down: any submodule could request a certain
>> version of another submodule somewhere else in the repo. And he wanted to
>> use gitlinks from one submodule to another for that, which I - hopefully -
>> convinced him was no good idea.
>>
> 
> You just convince me that submodules are more than I need and to make a
> lighter independent version of submodules which will never been followed
> by git commands.

Submodules are what you need, but it's no use to implement dependencies by
using gitlinks that point outside of their repositories.

>>>> b) And if you don't know where to get it, use this url
>>>
>>> Again that is the job of .gitmodules in the superproject.
>>
>> Yes. But this idea is about how the url could get into the .gitmodules of
>> the superproject in the first place. That can make it easier for the
>> superproject's developer to import a submodule into his repo and much more
>> important: it makes it possible to pull in submodule dependencies
>> automatically e.g. when running "git submodule add --resolve-dependencies
>> Gimp".
> 
> Only if you have a superproject.
> If not do the same thing from the gimp repository, now it contain all
> necessary infos to do the job.

No, it doesn't. Apart from the Gimp project telling you what version it
wants, you need to have a place to record the version that the user really
used. And that won't work without a superproject.

>>>> That is all stuff the submodule knows better than the superproject.
>>>
>>> Not necessarily. The version A0 of submodule A may depend on submodule B
>>> and may also know it must have at least version B0 of that submodule, but
>>> the superproject would know other constraints, e.g. the superproject
>>> itself also calls into submodule B and wants a newer version B1 of it.
>>
>> Right. That's what I tried to explain to Henri, the superproject ties it all
>> together. But I also like his idea to add a way to communicate information
>> from the submodule to the superproject, and give the superproject a choice
>> if it wants to use it.
>>
> 
> yes but the superproject contain no code in your design.
> Then it will never need anything by itself.
> It is only a container which you will inform with data already known by
> the submodules I do not see any value to it.

But being the container that ties it all together is more than enough value.