Re: [RFC] Support projects including other projects

From: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
Date: May 12, 2005, 06:04 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0505120147100.30848-100000@iabervon.org>
In-Reply-To: <7v8y2lknsp.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Wed, 11 May 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> I do not think the issues you are raising are solved by having
> that "include {hash}" thing in the commit like you propose here,
> instead of keeping it outside of the commit like I suggested.
> 
> What I meant to say was just I do not think having this "version
> dependency" in the core or outside of the core would make any
> difference.

I was primarily responding to your idea of it being outside the scope of cogito as well as outside the core.

My reasons for having it in the core are as follows:

 - All of the porcelain layers have to, at least, agree as to how this is
   represented in order for repositories to be portable; since the
   representation is common, it might as well be core.

 - There are currently no special files which are tracked for cogito (et 
   al) to put the information in.

 - Ideally, the dependancy would only be per-commit, not per-tree; if Petr
   releases a new cogito which only merges a new mainline with the git-pb,
   the cogito tree object should be the same (since the cogito content
   didn't change). This means that it can't be anywhere other than the
   commit.

 - If the solution to the issue of finding the necessary git-pb is to
   store it with cogito, then the programs that pull from this repository
   need to know that they need to pull the git-pb portion, and fsck-cache
   needs to know that the cogito references the git-pb.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*