From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: RFC: submodule terminology Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 15:59:22 -0700 Message-ID: <7v3b1rje45.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <20070520214417.GM5412@admingilde.org> <200705210006.47266.johan@herland.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Martin Waitz To: Johan Herland X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon May 21 00:59:30 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 1HpuN8-0002r4-E7 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 21 May 2007 00:59:30 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757947AbXETW70 (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 May 2007 18:59:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757868AbXETW70 (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 May 2007 18:59:26 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao101.cox.net ([68.230.241.45]:62219 "EHLO fed1rmmtao101.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757947AbXETW7Z (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 May 2007 18:59:25 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao101.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.05.02.00 201-2174-114-20060621) with ESMTP id <20070520225923.EDQC13995.fed1rmmtao101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>; Sun, 20 May 2007 18:59:23 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id 1azN1X00E1kojtg0000000; Sun, 20 May 2007 18:59:23 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200705210006.47266.johan@herland.net> (Johan Herland's message of "Mon, 21 May 2007 00:06:47 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johan Herland writes: > On Sunday 20 May 2007, Martin Waitz wrote: >> hoi :) >> >> I think we should agree to one name for what currently is named >> submodule / subproject / dirlink / gitlink. >> >> Or use one name for the low-level plumbing (have a tree entry >> which points to another commit): dirlink or gitlink and another >> one for the high-level UI think: submodule or subproject. >> But then we should use those names consequently. >> >> Oppinions? > > For the high-level concept, "subproject" seems to me the best > alternative. I think it is much better than "submodule" at > describing that the subproject is a stand-alone project/repo in > itself. I was wondering if we can get away by just calling them "projects", "projects containd in the superproject", etc., as I tend to agree with Linus, who used the term "superproject support" in his talk, that this is not really about creating "subproject" which are somehow different from ordinary projects, but more about supporting superprojects that can contain/point at other projects, which we did not have before 1.5.2 happened. > As for the low-level concept, I personally prefer "gitlink", but > I don't have any strong feelings. +1