Re: .gitlink for Summer of Code

From: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
Date: Mar 27, 2007, 18:09 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0703271338210.6485@iabervon.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0703270952020.6730@woody.linux-foundation.org>

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> Think of it this way: if you think people find it a bit annoying that you 
> currently have to get all the history when you do clone (and why people 
> have worked on "shallow clones" in git), imagine just *how* frustrating it 
> is if you have to get all five-hundred subprojects when you only want to 
> work on one small one!

Is it fair to say that subproject support means that there's a use case where everybody will need shallow clones? And that it points out natural triggers for shallowness?

I don't see that the "shallow clone" mechanism is special for subprojects (and I don't think that a solution that depends on subprojects being what causes it is a good idea), but clearly it makes sense to support: (1) no clone of submodules, (2) shallow clone of submodules, and (3) full clone of submodules.

Somebody working on gcc for *BSD would presumably want to get all of gcc and a shallow clone of the other 1000 submodules, right? Or they'd just clone the submodule and ignore the superproject. At least, they'd need shallow clones of a bunch of the submodules, because it's not interesting to have the superproject otherwise.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*