Re: [PATCH] status&commit: Teach them to show commits of modified submodules.

From: Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net>
Date: Nov 12, 2007, 07:26 UTC
Message-ID: <47380019.1000704@viscovery.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vhcjscyhu.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano schrieb:

Show 14 quoted lines

> "Yin Ping" <pkufranky@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> I think it's this kind of case in most open-source project. However,
>> in a company environment, superprojects may be not so super.
> 
> Let's not say "most open-source" nor "company", because I think
> nobody said anything that substantiates that the commit density
> characteristics I described is typical for most open-source, nor
> what you said is typical for corporate development projects, in
> this thread so far.
> 
> If "superprojects is not so super", why are you using submodule
> to bind these, instead of using a single project that tracks
> developments of such closely tied parts?

Because the a monolithic project is just too large? Think of KDE!

> I am not saying that it is wrong to use submodule to track such
> groups of source trees whose versions are very closely tied
> together.  At least not yet.

In KDE, the supermodule will actually just be a container that binds the submodules together. The essential development will happen in the submodules, and the supermodule will receive a commit quite frequently. In this case, there will often be only a few or a few dozen commits listed, and I anticipate that the integrator who is going to make the commit (to the supermodule) will probably like the summary. So I'm all for it.

-- Hannes