From: A Large Angry SCM <gitzilla@gmail.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>,
Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>,
Simon Richter <Simon.Richter@hogyros.de>
Subject: Re: RFC: Subprojects
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 12:30:33 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <43C95F69.7090200@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0601141154590.13339@g5.osdl.org>
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, A Large Angry SCM wrote:
>>So far I've not seen any convincing arguments why the sub-projects can not be
>>managed by the Makefile, or equivalent, of the super-project. Particularly
>>when the sub-projects have a life of their own.
>
> Now, from a developer standpoint I actually agree with you. I find
> sub-projects totally useless - I'm much happier just having separate
> trees.
>
> The advantage (as far as I can tell) of sub-projects is not that they are
> easier to develop in, but that it's a total nightmare for the technical
> _user_ to download ten different projects from ten different sites, and
> configure them properly and install them in the right order, and keep them
> up-to-date.
>
> There are projects that I simply gave up even trying to track: I wasn't
> interested in being a developer per se, but I _was_ interested in trying
> to test and give feedback to the current development tree - but it was
> just too damn confusing to get it working.
>
> If I could have just done a "git clone <top-level>" to get it all, I'd
> have been a much more productive user.
$ make get_sub_components
This can work with most any SCM (depending on your environment), is
amazingly flexible, and does not require special support in the SCM.
The "get" rule for each sub-project could be something like:
git_sub-project:
mkdir sub-project
cd sub-project
git-init-db
git-fetch <fetch-options> <repository> <refspec>
git-checkout <branch>
$(MAKE) get_sub_components
>
> This is why I think sub-projects are more about "git checkout" and an
> automated "git fetch" than anything else. Doing actual development etc you
> can easily do one project at a time. "git diff" and "git commit" wouldn't
> need any real ability to recurse into subprojects and try to make it
> seamless. And if you do a "git pull" that needs to do anything but
> fast-forward, you might as well resolve the sub-projects one by one.
And all of this can be done today, without changing git, with more
flexibility, with Make rules.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-01-14 20:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-01-11 15:58 RFC: Subprojects Simon Richter
2006-01-11 16:44 ` Johannes Schindelin
2006-01-11 16:52 ` Simon Richter
2006-01-11 17:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-01-11 19:43 ` Simon Richter
2006-01-11 20:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-01-14 8:59 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-01-14 19:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-01-14 19:32 ` A Large Angry SCM
2006-01-14 20:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-01-14 20:30 ` A Large Angry SCM [this message]
2006-01-14 20:38 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-01-15 0:28 ` Martin Langhoff
2006-01-15 0:49 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-01-15 1:55 ` Tom Prince
2006-01-16 5:06 ` Daniel Barkalow
2006-01-16 19:08 ` A Large Angry SCM
2006-01-16 20:20 ` Daniel Barkalow
2006-01-16 22:25 ` A Large Angry SCM
2006-01-16 7:48 ` Alex Riesen
2006-01-14 20:16 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-01-15 1:01 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-01-16 10:44 ` Josef Weidendorfer
2006-01-16 20:49 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-01-17 5:46 ` Daniel Barkalow
2006-01-17 6:18 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-01-17 14:09 ` Petr Baudis
2006-01-17 16:45 ` Daniel Barkalow
2006-01-17 17:33 ` Craig Schlenter
2006-01-17 17:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-01-17 17:41 ` Daniel Barkalow
2006-01-18 1:41 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-01-18 3:49 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-01-18 11:47 ` Alexander Litvinov
2006-01-18 13:29 ` Andreas Ericsson
2006-01-18 17:06 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-01-18 18:21 ` Daniel Barkalow
2006-01-18 18:49 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-01-18 19:29 ` Daniel Barkalow
2006-01-23 1:22 ` Petr Baudis
2006-01-23 0:50 ` Petr Baudis
2006-01-16 7:28 ` Alexander Litvinov
2006-01-16 10:16 ` Andreas Ericsson
2006-02-20 13:16 ` Uwe Zeisberger
2006-02-21 7:57 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-01-12 3:19 ` Alexander Litvinov
2006-01-12 4:46 ` Martin Langhoff
2006-01-12 5:25 ` Alexander Litvinov
2006-01-12 5:39 ` Martin Langhoff
2006-01-12 8:36 ` Alexander Litvinov
2006-01-12 8:58 ` Alex Riesen
2006-01-12 7:20 ` Anand Kumria
2006-01-12 13:38 ` Daniel Barkalow
2006-01-15 15:07 ` [RFC][PATCH] Cogito support for simple subprojects Petr Baudis
2006-01-15 17:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-01-15 19:15 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=43C95F69.7090200@gmail.com \
--to=gitzilla@gmail.com \
--cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=Simon.Richter@hogyros.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=junkio@cox.net \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).