From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Lehmann Subject: Re: Avery Pennarun's git-subtree? Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:14:53 +0200 Message-ID: <4C4F4C4D.608@web.de> References: <4C4778DE.9090905@web.de> <4C49B0E9.1090300@web.de> <4C4C9743.9080902@web.de> <20100727184047.GC25124@worldvisions.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jakub Narebski , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=C6var_Arnfj=F6r=F0?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_Bjarmason?= , Bryan Larsen , git , Junio C Hamano , Linus Torvalds , Heiko Voigt To: Avery Pennarun X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jul 27 23:15:08 2010 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 1OdrUR-000864-OE for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:15:08 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753299Ab0G0VO7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jul 2010 17:14:59 -0400 Received: from fmmailgate02.web.de ([217.72.192.227]:40456 "EHLO fmmailgate02.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753197Ab0G0VO6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jul 2010 17:14:58 -0400 Received: from smtp01.web.de ( [172.20.0.243]) by fmmailgate02.web.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C93116CE980A; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:14:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [80.128.76.222] (helo=[192.168.178.29]) by smtp01.web.de with asmtp (WEB.DE 4.110 #24) id 1OdrUG-00026D-00; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:14:56 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; de; rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.1.1 In-Reply-To: <20100727184047.GC25124@worldvisions.ca> X-Sender: Jens.Lehmann@web.de X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/jlqboxaTZ3pndh5HYZYGWovGdHpvBTqRxglLD 5nbIYCXxNRePSaN4LAn6unW85HxFVKiUgz6ma9hKn8dVAItSVV ysHyFAucK30b9n+OFAQQ== Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Am 27.07.2010 20:40, schrieb Avery Pennarun: > With what you're proposing, for all my submodules, we can't each have our > own project; we all have to push to the shared one. > > (Just to be clear: I don't want to fork *every submodule by hand every > time*. I just want *my* stuff to be in *my* repo. The easiest way to do > this would be to have all my changes in a single repo, ie. my fork of the > superproject.) Fair enough, but that would not be the Right Thing for my use cases. (E.g. I am using submodules to have a single upstream repo for a library which I use in almost all my projects. And fixes to that library I do in one of these projects shall be fetchable in all other projects right after I pushed them to the submodules repo, without having to push them out of the superprojects repo into the shared one /again/. The situation at dayjob is the same and I assume a lot of people are using submodules this way). So I would vote for not breaking the *feature* submodules currently have: to use a different repo than that used for the superproject. Because that enables you to have shared content. I am not against having the /choice/ to have the submodules objects in the same repo as the superproject, but that should be an option and not mandatory.