From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Pitre Subject: Re: What's in git.git (stable) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:01:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <7v7is3inbw.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <1177662893872-git-send-email-junkio@cox.net> <200704271019.56341.andyparkins@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano To: Andy Parkins X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Apr 27 16:02:24 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 1HhR1V-0002yl-2T for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:02:09 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754083AbXD0OCF (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:02:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755853AbXD0OCF (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:02:05 -0400 Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36]:29413 "EHLO relais.videotron.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754083AbXD0OCE (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:02:04 -0400 Received: from xanadu.home ([74.56.106.175]) by VL-MH-MR002.ip.videotron.ca (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-2.05 (built Apr 28 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JH5005BVTMZC100@VL-MH-MR002.ip.videotron.ca> for git@vger.kernel.org; Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:01:48 -0400 (EDT) In-reply-to: <200704271019.56341.andyparkins@gmail.com> X-X-Sender: nico@xanadu.home Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Andy Parkins wrote: > I am still concerned about the submodule thing - once we push a mainline > version out with the format decided, that will be that and we'll be stuck > with it. Are we _really_ sure that it's right to have a non-object hash in > the tree objects? > > It's a fundamental change in the form of the tree: at the moment every hash in > the tree object represents another object in the same repository; with > gitlink as it is, that convention is broken. > > Let's be really, really sure. I'm not sure a big enough fuss has been made of > the fact that this is a change of repository format. Before this you could > pretty much access any repository with any version. I think it is reasonable to say that if you intend to work with a repo that contains references to submodules, then you need to upgrade your Git version. It is not like if the Git licensing fees are really prohibitive. Nicolas