Re: Re: [RFC] What to you think about a loose status for submodules?

From: Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@hvoigt.net>
Date: Jan 20, 2010, 18:16 UTC
Message-ID: <20100120181652.GA10803@book.hvoigt.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vvdi7fbg3.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:58:04PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 26 quoted lines

> Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@hvoigt.net> writes:
> 
> > I am not sure what is the best way to create such a group mapping using
> > our config files though. I would like to allow multiple groups/views to
> > have the submodules like:
> > What do you think?
> 
> That, or alternatively:
> 
>     [submodule "doc"]
>         path = Documentation
> 
>     [submodule "help"]
>         path = help
> 
>     [submodule "core"]
>         path = core
> 
>     [submodule "app"]
>         path = app
> 
>     [view "default"]
>         modules = core app
> 
>     [view "doc"]
>         modules = core doc help

Even though there has not been much more work on this item the idea has become much clearer for me since the last discussion. Now that sparse checkout is in master I would like to generalize this idea a little further.

How about adding this to .gitattributes so it can be used for any file/directory? E.g.:

.gitattributes: /core view=default, doc /app view=default /Documentation view=doc *.loc view=doc, default

which could then  be utilized by

  git checkout --view=doc

for example. If no view is given we default to everything.

Does the current sparse implementation work with submodule entries as well? Then it could be even more straightforward to implement than the previous idea.

cheers Heiko