Re: RFC: submodule terminology

From: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
Date: May 20, 2007, 22:06 UTC
Message-ID: <200705210006.47266.johan@herland.net>
In-Reply-To: <20070520214417.GM5412@admingilde.org>

On Sunday 20 May 2007, Martin Waitz wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> hoi :)
> 
> I think we should agree to one name for what currently is named
> submodule / subproject / dirlink / gitlink.
> 
> Or use one name for the low-level plumbing (have a tree entry
> which points to another commit): dirlink or gitlink and another
> one for the high-level UI think: submodule or subproject.
> But then we should use those names consequently.
> 
> Oppinions?

For the high-level concept, "subproject" seems to me the best alternative. I think it is much better than "submodule" at describing that the subproject is a stand-alone project/repo in itself.

As for the low-level concept, I personally prefer "gitlink", but I don't have any strong feelings. The fact that "gitlink" seems to already be used in the code (as in resolve_gitlink_ref() etc.), coupled with "dirlink" being somewhat ambiguous (i.e. may also be interpreted as "(sym)link to directory") makes the case for me.

Have fun!

...Johan

-- 
Johan Herland, <johan@herland.net>
www.herland.net