From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [PATCH] status&commit: Teach them to show commits of modified submodules. Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:26:17 +0100 Message-ID: <47380019.1000704@viscovery.net> References: <1194722863-14741-1-git-send-email-pkufranky@gmail.com> <7vabpliz13.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <46dff0320711102218h259199e3g2b4a4d3b73202cdb@mail.gmail.com> <7vhcjscyhu.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Yin Ping , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Nov 12 08:26:44 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IrTgy-0003Sq-4f for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:26:44 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753085AbXKLH00 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Nov 2007 02:26:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752921AbXKLH00 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Nov 2007 02:26:26 -0500 Received: from lilzmailso02.liwest.at ([212.33.55.13]:58369 "EHLO lilzmailso02.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752748AbXKLH0Z (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Nov 2007 02:26:25 -0500 Received: from cm56-163-160.liwest.at ([86.56.163.160] helo=linz.eudaptics.com) by lilzmailso02.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.66) (envelope-from ) id 1IrTg5-0005Fj-EI; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:25:49 +0100 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.42]) by linz.eudaptics.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF5A754D; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:26:17 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) In-Reply-To: <7vhcjscyhu.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Spam-Report: ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, BAYES_99=3.5 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano schrieb: > "Yin Ping" writes: > >> I think it's this kind of case in most open-source project. However, >> in a company environment, superprojects may be not so super. > > Let's not say "most open-source" nor "company", because I think > nobody said anything that substantiates that the commit density > characteristics I described is typical for most open-source, nor > what you said is typical for corporate development projects, in > this thread so far. > > If "superprojects is not so super", why are you using submodule > to bind these, instead of using a single project that tracks > developments of such closely tied parts? Because the a monolithic project is just too large? Think of KDE! > I am not saying that it is wrong to use submodule to track such > groups of source trees whose versions are very closely tied > together. At least not yet. In KDE, the supermodule will actually just be a container that binds the submodules together. The essential development will happen in the submodules, and the supermodule will receive a commit quite frequently. In this case, there will often be only a few or a few dozen commits listed, and I anticipate that the integrator who is going to make the commit (to the supermodule) will probably like the summary. So I'm all for it. -- Hannes