From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 23:24:09 GMT
Subject: Re: .gitlink for Summer of Code
Message-ID: <7v3b3rvbae.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <200703270117.59205.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de>

Josef Weidendorfer <Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de> writes:

> On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Martin Waitz <tali@admingilde.org> writes:
>> 
>> > For submodules I currently use <parent>/.git/objects/module/<submodule>/
>> > to store the objects belonging to the submodule.
>> 
>> I was not following the gitlink discussion closely, but what is
>> the motivation behind this separation of the object store?
>
> The separation issue is about scalability of submodules, and not
> directly about gitlink.

Unless you are thinking about rsync of object store, it is not
clear what "scalability of submodules" has to do with having
separate object database.

The issue I recall from earlier discussion on scalability of
submodules was about the direct placement of commit objects in
supermodule trees (which would force fetching in supermodule to
drag in all submodules even when the "integration" or "build
infrastructure" person does not want to have submodules pulled).
But I think that is an issue of the definition of connectivity.
It should be orthogonal to the issue of how object store is laid
out, shouldn't it?