On Saturday 02 December 2006 21:24, Martin Waitz wrote:
Which decision, for what? Sorry, I do not understand.
Do you want to say that relative submodule root paths should be kept fix
the whole lifetime of a supermodule?
Ie. a submodule "identity" is bound to its relative path, and when we
move it, it should be seen as deleting at and creating a totally new,
different submodule?
That's fine.
But you have to handle submodule creation/deletion neverless. And while
you are at a commit which has a given submodule deleted, you have to
keep the submodule data somewhere - referencing it with a name.
I do not speak here about the object database, that could be combined;
but about all the other files in .git/ of the currently not checked out
submodule.
Can you give a usage szenario? What do you mean here?
What should such a general partial tree support look like? I suppose you
want to configure paths which should not be checked out. As long as you
say that a given submodule always has to exist at a given path, you are
right: then, you can say: "Please, do not check out this submodule" which
is the same as "Do not check out this path".
But I think it is quite restrictive to not allow to move submodules around.
When the supermodule upstream decides to move a submodule, your partial
tree config to not check out a submodule will be lost.
But more important, if you made changes to a given submodule, and pull from
upstream which changed the submodule position in-between, your changes will
be not taken over to the new position, as the move is seen as creation of
a totally independent submodule.
Josef
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html