Re: RFC: submodule terminology
- From
Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
- Date
- May 20, 2007, 23:16 UTC
- Message-ID
- <200705210116.25079.johan@herland.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <20070520230352.GQ5412@admingilde.org>
On Monday 21 May 2007, Martin Waitz wrote:
Show 14 quoted lines
> hoi :)
>
> On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 12:06:47AM +0200, Johan Herland wrote:
> > 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.
>
> it may be developed independently but for the sake of the more important
> bigger ("the top level project") it really is only one small part.
> That and the fact that "module" is already an established term
> in software makes me prefer "submodule".
> For me the project is always the top-level one: the project you
> currently work for."The project you currently work for" depends on your POV. But I agree that using the term "project" alone might be confusing. That's why I'd rather talk about "superproject" and "subproject". That way, there's no ambiguity at all.
Show 10 quoted lines
> > 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. > > The only problem I have with gitlink is that there already was > a lot of discussion about some entirely different "gitlink", so > choosing a different name is not that bad. > Aside from that I prefer gitlink, too.
The term "gitlink" is ambiguous/confusing? I didn't know. What's the other meaning of gitlink?
(Unless you're talking about gitlink as in "gitlink:git[7]" which appears all over our asciidoc documentation, but I don't think that counts...)
Have fun!
...Johan
-- Johan Herland, <johan@herland.net> www.herland.net