{"thread":{"id":"10077","subject":"Submodule usability","startedAt":"2007-09-29T17:24:53Z","lastAt":"2007-09-29T19:02:57Z","messageCount":3,"participants":["Daniel Barkalow","Sam Ravnborg"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"54351","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0709291302240.5926@iabervon.org","threadId":"10077","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Submodule usability","fromName":"Daniel Barkalow","fromEmail":"barkalow@iabervon.org","sentAt":"2007-09-29T17:24:53Z","receivedAt":"2007-09-29T17:24:53Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"barkalow@iabervon.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/55364219?v=4"},"body":"Would it be feasible in general to have \"git status\" cascade into \nsubmodules if they're checked out? As it is now, in a project with \nsubmodules, a \"git commit -a\" at the top can create a commit that lacks \nchanges that are in the working tree and aren't mentioned to the user at \nall, which is a sure recipe for a stream of \"add the change I forgot to \nadd last time\" follow-up commits.\n\nWhile I'm on that topic, I think I want an \"includesfile\" config option \nthat specifies patterns that should never be present untracked (but only \nas per-user configuration, since I think that's exclusively a matter of \npersonal taste). I'll probably code this up myself unless I've missed \nsomebody else doing it already. My first guess at effect is -a adds them, \nand they appear as \"not added\" in the \"modified\" section of status output \ninstead of the \"untracked\" section.\n\nAlso, would it be reasonable to have a gitmodules option for submodules \nthat the supermodule doesn't make sense without? E.g., multiple projects \nare now using kbuild as their build system, so, in order to share \nimprovements to kbuild between projects, it would be useful to have it as \na submodule. But, by default, the kernel wouldn't come with its build \nsystem any more, which would be a pain. So have a tracked option for the \nsubmodule that says that, when checking out the superproject, this \nparticular subproject should be updated automatically.\n\n\t-Daniel\n*This .sig left intentionally blank*\n"},{"id":"54354","messageId":"20070929185238.GB19943@uranus.ravnborg.org","threadId":"10077","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0709291302240.5926@iabervon.org","subject":"Re: Submodule usability","fromName":"Sam Ravnborg","fromEmail":"sam@ravnborg.org","sentAt":"2007-09-29T18:52:38Z","receivedAt":"2007-09-29T18:52:38Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sam@ravnborg.org","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/168a912606ed0742d840bb365e3cc21db390c36531a58341dc7a069cc1f15f62?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Hi Daniel\nOn Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 01:24:53PM -0400, Daniel Barkalow wrote:\n> \n> Also, would it be reasonable to have a gitmodules option for submodules \n> that the supermodule doesn't make sense without? E.g., multiple projects \n> are now using kbuild as their build system,\n\nOut of couriosity...\nI know of busybox and klibc.\nAre there any others using kbuild these days?\n\nI see that several build system share some ideas with kbuild\nwhich I btw am glad to see.\nBut if there are enough project taking benefit of kbuild I should\nmaybe revisit my idea to factor out all the common stuff somehow.\n\n\n\tSam\n"},{"id":"54356","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0709291453410.5926@iabervon.org","threadId":"10077","inReplyTo":"20070929185238.GB19943@uranus.ravnborg.org","subject":"Re: Submodule usability","fromName":"Daniel Barkalow","fromEmail":"barkalow@iabervon.org","sentAt":"2007-09-29T19:02:57Z","receivedAt":"2007-09-29T19:02:57Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"barkalow@iabervon.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/55364219?v=4"},"body":"On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Sam Ravnborg wrote:\n\n> Hi Daniel\n> On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 01:24:53PM -0400, Daniel Barkalow wrote:\n> > \n> > Also, would it be reasonable to have a gitmodules option for submodules \n> > that the supermodule doesn't make sense without? E.g., multiple projects \n> > are now using kbuild as their build system,\n> \n> Out of couriosity...\n> I know of busybox and klibc.\n> Are there any others using kbuild these days?\n> \n> I see that several build system share some ideas with kbuild\n> which I btw am glad to see.\n> But if there are enough project taking benefit of kbuild I should\n> maybe revisit my idea to factor out all the common stuff somehow.\n\nI'm only sure of busybox and klibc (3 including the kernel is \"multiple\"), \nbut IIRC a number of linux-specific userspace projects seem awfully \nsimilar. I wouldn't be surprised if the build systems that currently share \nonly ideas would share code if it were factored out.\n\n\t-Daniel\n*This .sig left intentionally blank*\n"}]}