From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Subject: Re: organizing multiple repositories with dependencies Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:43:57 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1334568432.53977.YahooMailNeo@web65906.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <201204171837.q3HIbbcW013784@no.baka.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: Hilco Wijbenga , Git Users To: Phil Hord X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Apr 30 21:46:09 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SOwXv-0003cr-2R for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 21:46:07 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756571Ab2D3TqB (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:46:01 -0400 Received: from exprod6og115.obsmtp.com ([64.18.1.35]:49241 "EHLO exprod6og115.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756470Ab2D3TqA (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:46:00 -0400 Received: from CFWEX01.americas.cray.com ([136.162.34.11]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob115.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT57r9pKJPn2epSUhSnZgTEmpj1nTleyi@postini.com; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:46:00 PDT Received: from transit.us.cray.com (172.31.17.53) by CFWEX01.americas.cray.com (172.30.88.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:44:00 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Phil Hord's message of "Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:25:54 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Phil Hord writes: >> I can't think of a situation where I would need to implement the same >> or similar features in multiple components where those components are >> not tightly coupled in some way. > > I tend to agree. However, I have a use case that I suffer on a daily basis. > > We have code that runs on multiple platforms (embedded SoCs). I have > a superproject that has a common library and some vendor-specific code > for each supported platform broken out into submodules. > > super-all > +-- CommonAPI > +-- VendorA > +-- VendorB > +-- VendorC > > The code in the Vendor submodules contains the proprietary > implementations for specific vendor's systems of the CommonAPI > library. When the CommonAPI gets a new feature, it often gets > implemented in all the vendor submodules as well. Ah yes, that's a good example. > We could easily do this without submodules, of course. But this setup > allows us to define alternative super-projects that we can then share > with subcontractors and original vendors without exposing proprietary > third-party code. > > super-B > +-- CommonAPI > +-- VendorB > > super-C > +-- CommonAPI > +-- VendorC > > We could still handle this with git-subtree. But we don't. Yes, I agree that this is a very important use case. This is the case where subprojects exist because of vendor barriers, not necessarily due to software engineering concerns. -Dave