Re: Re: Re: Google Summer of Code 2011
- From
Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@hvoigt.net>
- Date
- Mar 10, 2011, 22:46 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20110310224654.GA13702@book.hvoigt.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <20110309231604.GA3903@paksenarrion.iveqy.com>
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 12:16:04AM +0100, Fredrik Gustafsson wrote:
Show 16 quoted lines
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 10:52:56PM +0100, Heiko Voigt wrote: > > Sounds promising. When I was talking about gui or submodules I did not > > think about gui *and* submodules. Do you have some concrete areas you > > would like to improve in mind? > > Many of the ideas I had was already mentioned in > https://github.com/jlehmann/git-submod-enhancements/wiki/ > > The ones I feel is most important for me is: > * gitk: Add popup menu for submodules to see the detailed history of > changes > * Check before a push in the superproject that all submodules HEADs are > pushed > * Showing that a submodule has a HEAD not on any branch in “git status” > * Move the submodules git directories into the superproject’s .git so that > submodules can be created and deleted
Sounds like a good roadmap. From my viewpoint this includes enough work for a summer. There are also enough small steps so even if only part of this would be finished it would contain enough improvement for git. Since this is the first time I am offering to mentor I am not that familar how much work can be done during summer. What do others think?
(added Jens to the CC)
> With this said, I'm not familiar with the git codebase yet and does not > have any concrete solutions. For example, I don't understand why a > submodule doesn't get a default branch.
The familiarity with the code should not be a problem since the idea of the Summer of Code is to allow more people to get involved into a project.
Regarding the default branch: The short answer is that git does not record any branchname but a specific revision using its SHA1. This is on purpose to make sure that you get exactly the code you had when you created the commit. But a default branch has been requested many times to make working easier. AFAIR it the consensus was that creating a branch recursively by default would not be a good idea. But doing that on explicit user request could be implemented as an option to ease users workflow. So something like this could be discussed.
Cheers Heiko