Re: What's in git.git (stable)

From: Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 27, 2007, 18:03 UTC
Message-ID: <200704271903.33263.andyparkins@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0704271002310.9964@woody.linux-foundation.org>

On Friday 2007, April 27, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> I'm personally really really sure. The whole point of subprojects (at

Fair enough. I just hadn't seen very much talk about this issue and wanted to make sure.

> trouble with the new feature: at a minimum, git-fsck would always
> complain about the invalid mode (and things like "git diff" would too
> - I think it used to just die on unknown modes).

That kind of settles it really - if neither implementation would have worked with non-submodule git then the decision must come down to which is technically better - and I'm persuaded that the extra layer of indirection doesn't actually gain anything other than some extra objects to track.

>  - with 1.5.2, git will be good enough to _serve_ stuff, even if it
> might not be very usable for the client-side operations. So

>From my point of view, I don't really mind manually fetching the

submodules. I very much appreciate that I don't _have_ to have the submodules for the superproject to continue to work.

I was actually surprised how little I'm finding I need submodule support in the porcelain. The only slight problem at the moment is with git-checkout; switching from a branch with the supermodule to a branch without it and back needs a bit of hoop jumping, but nothing too painful. All in all - success all over.

Andy

-- 
Dr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIET
andyparkins@gmail.com