From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sam Vilain Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] Teach "fsck" not to follow subproject links Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:59:36 +1200 Message-ID: <461D6858.4090007@vilain.net> References: <461D6432.90205@vilain.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Git Mailing List , Junio C Hamano To: Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Apr 12 01:01:31 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Hblof-0004IC-4q for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 01:01:29 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161396AbXDKXAz (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:00:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161399AbXDKW77 (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Apr 2007 18:59:59 -0400 Received: from watts.utsl.gen.nz ([202.78.240.73]:47587 "EHLO magnus.utsl.gen.nz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161390AbXDKW7o (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Apr 2007 18:59:44 -0400 Received: by magnus.utsl.gen.nz (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 2C1DF13A403; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:59:42 +1200 (NZST) Received: from [192.168.2.22] (leibniz.catalyst.net.nz [202.78.240.7]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by magnus.utsl.gen.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2E6513A3E1; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:59:38 +1200 (NZST) User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060521) In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on mail.magnus.utsl.gen.nz X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=failed version=3.0.2 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Does this consider the case where the intent of the subprojects are to > > collate multiple, small projects into one bigger project? > > > > In that case, you might want to keep all of the subprojects in the same > > git repository. > > I assume you mean "you might want to keep all of the subprojects' objects > in the same git object directory". > > And yes, that's absolutely true, but it's technically no different from > just using GIT_OBJECT_DIRECTORY to share objects between totally unrelated > projects, or using git/alternates to share objects between (probably > *less* unrelated repositories, but still clearly individual repos). > Would that be the only distinction? Would submodules be descended into for object reachability questions? > So the main point of superproject/subprojects is to allow independence > (because independence is what allows it to scale), but there is nothing to > say that things *have* to kept totally isolated. > I'm particularly interested in repositories with, say, thousands of submodules but only a few hundred meg. I really want to avoid the situation where each of those submodules gets checked or descended into separately for updates etc. Sam.