From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Seth Robertson Subject: Re: Big Mess--How to use Git to resolve Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:56:10 -0500 Message-ID: <201112212356.pBLNuApC009997@no.baka.org> References: <1324125130643-7103964.post@n2.nabble.com> <86iplf2oy5.fsf@red.stonehenge.com> <1324147247781-7104493.post@n2.nabble.com> <4EF26F7B.90206@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: hs_glw , git@vger.kernel.org To: Neal Kreitzinger X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Dec 22 00:56:21 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RdW1E-0001Qv-Eu for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 00:56:20 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754295Ab1LUX4Q (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:56:16 -0500 Received: from tsutomu.baka.org ([66.114.72.182]:34666 "EHLO tsutomu.baka.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752459Ab1LUX4O (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:56:14 -0500 Received: from no.baka.org (no.baka.org [IPv6:2001:470:88bb::2]) by tsutomu.baka.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBLNuBti015642 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:56:11 -0500 Received: from no.baka.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by no.baka.org (8.14.4/8.14.0) with ESMTP id pBLNuApC009997; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:56:10 -0500 In-reply-to: <4EF26F7B.90206@gmail.com> Comments: In reply to a message from "Neal Kreitzinger " dated "Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:44:59 -0600." Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: In message <4EF26F7B.90206@gmail.com>, Neal Kreitzinger writes: We are working on implementing this so some of what I said is theoretical. Custom branches in combination with submodules seems like it could get pretty unwieldy if not managed properly. You might want to consider using gitslave (http://gitslave.sf.net) which is easier to use when you are developing both the superproject and the subprojects at the same time. You don't have to use the "mother-may-I" commit protocol. The trick with gitslave is that normally you run all git commands on all repositories at the same time. So all repositories which are part of the superproject will be on the same branch. This sounds like it is ideal for you. However, you do lose the strong binding between the superproject commit and the subproject commit, so you would want to tag all projects (trivial when using gitslave) when you go through a release so that you can later go back and check out synchronized repositories for a particular release. -Seth Robertson