From: Johan Herland Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 23:10:01 GMT Subject: Re: RFC: submodule terminology Message-ID: <200705210110.01223.johan@herland.net> In-Reply-To: <7v3b1rje45.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> On Monday 21 May 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johan Herland writes: > > > On Sunday 20 May 2007, Martin Waitz wrote: > >> 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. > > I was wondering if we can get away by just calling them > "projects", "projects containd in the superproject", etc., as I > tend to agree with Linus, who used the term "superproject > support" in his talk, that this is not really about creating > "subproject" which are somehow different from ordinary projects, > but more about supporting superprojects that can contain/point > at other projects, which we did not have before 1.5.2 happened. I agree that superproject is probably the best term of all. However, I think it's a good idea to be explicit so as to avoid unnecessary confusion. My vote therefore goes to "superproject/subproject" rather than "superproject/project". ...Johan -- Johan Herland, www.herland.net