From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: Submodule object store Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:53:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <20070326220302.GH22773@admingilde.org> <7vfy7rvct2.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20070326231637.GJ22773@admingilde.org> <7vy7ljtwir.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20070326233603.GL22773@admingilde.org> <20070327112549.GA12178@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> <20070327115029.GC12178@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> <20070327155306.GQ22773@admingilde.org> <20070327172216.GA24200@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> <20070327194233.GA28229@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-1463790079-464085319-1175025233=:6730" Cc: Martin Waitz , Junio C Hamano , Josef Weidendorfer , Eric Lesh , Matthieu Moy , git@vger.kernel.org To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Uwe_Kleine-K=F6nig?= X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Mar 27 21:54:41 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 1HWHkd-0007NM-Tv for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:54:40 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752700AbXC0Tyg (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:54:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753905AbXC0Tyf (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:54:35 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.24]:40357 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752689AbXC0Tye (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:54:34 -0400 Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (fw.osdl.org [65.172.181.6]) by smtp.osdl.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id l2RJrsU2011580 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:53:55 -0700 Received: from localhost (shell0.pdx.osdl.net [10.9.0.31]) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id l2RJrr3x026379; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:53:54 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20070327194233.GA28229@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.469 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-osdl_revision__1.119__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.177 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. ---1463790079-464085319-1175025233=:6730 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > In the state above (i.e. linux-2.6 being a commit) the > superproject's odb doesn't necessarily needs the object > 0123456789abcde0, right. But the commit before that had linux-2.6 being > a tree. Well, you're saying that somebody split an existing non-supermodule project? If so, the supermodule really *does* have the old tree as its state, and sure, there will be duplication, but it's duplication that existed in the actual projects themselves, not something that the superproject introduced. In other words, I don't think that's an argument for or against sharing the object database. You should *always* be able to share the object database by setting GIT_OBJECT_DIR if you want (or by using alternates). But that's independent of whether you are a sub/supermodule.. After all, if you generate two totally *separate* projects (no subproject at all) and they just shared some state on their own (say, git and xdiff both as totally independent git repositories), they have objects that can be in common. Do you want to use alternates or share an object database? Maybe, or maybe not. It depends on the user, not on whether it's a subproject. Linus ---1463790079-464085319-1175025233=:6730--