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: Martin Waitz Subject: Re: [RFC] Submodules in GIT Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 08:55:38 +0100 Message-ID: <20061121075538.GH20736@admingilde.org> References: <20061120215116.GA20736@admingilde.org> <7v7ixp20za.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7v4pstzmk5.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20061121062753.GG20736@admingilde.org> <7vr6vxxnc8.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qM81t570OJUP5TU/" NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 07:56:11 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Linus Torvalds , git@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vr6vxxnc8.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> X-PGP-Fingerprint: B21B 5755 9684 5489 7577 001A 8FF1 1AC5 DFE8 0FB2 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GmQU6-0003OZ-0S for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2006 08:56:02 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S966896AbWKUHzl (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Nov 2006 02:55:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S966909AbWKUHzk (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Nov 2006 02:55:40 -0500 Received: from agent.admingilde.org ([213.95.21.5]:18316 "EHLO mail.admingilde.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966896AbWKUHzj (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Nov 2006 02:55:39 -0500 Received: from martin by mail.admingilde.org with local (Exim 4.50 #1) id 1GmQTi-0008NM-9t; Tue, 21 Nov 2006 08:55:38 +0100 To: Junio C Hamano Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org --qM81t570OJUP5TU/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable hoi :) On Mon, Nov 20, 2006 at 11:36:55PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I think that is fine as long as we somehow enforce the topology > of submodule to be similar to the toplevel topology. Otherwise > I suspect it leads to unintuitive behaviour. >=20 > Suppose that the ancestry chain for the toplevel are A, A~1, A~2 > and you asked for "A~2..A". A submodule is bound at tree "sub/" > and suppose A:sub/ =3D=3D B, A~1:sub/ =3D=3D C, and A~2:sub/ =3D=3D D. >=20 > Now further suppose the ancestry chain for B, C and D are like > this: >=20 > o---C > / \ > ...o---o---D---B >=20 > A naive implementation of "--objects A~2..A" would propagate > UNINTERESTING to D and mark B and C unmarked. Would it however > be reasonable to include commits marked as 'o'? I think it is reasonable to just go on as in a normal repository. That is, pretend we want to list D..B and mark all commits which are reachable. --=20 Martin Waitz --qM81t570OJUP5TU/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFYrD6j/Eaxd/oD7IRAhzDAJ40EPMAEC2foddZrTrAHp5m0FORowCeLFme BakdgOKQTO8iAuAa0rnUWsU= =ErGz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----