Re: Partial checkouts / submodules

From: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
Date: Nov 20, 2007, 18:36 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711201329490.32410@iabervon.org>
In-Reply-To: <1AD9B065-647B-4672-B6B0-8D4447960913@midwinter.com>

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Steven Grimm wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> On Nov 20, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> >This has theoretical problems: it's going to be practically impossible, in
> >most cases, to write a commit message that describes changes in three
> >submodules (which are sometimes used in the context of a different
> >supermodule) as well as the supermodule.
> 
> I got the impression from his email that there *are* no other supermodules.
> The submodules are submodules purely to reduce the amount of data people have
> to transfer around, not because they're logically distinct from the parent.

He said:

"there are multiple superprojects sharing some of the submodules."

Getting the effect of partial checkouts was the first-listed reason, but not the only one. The submodules don't make sense except in the context of some supermodule, but there are multiple contexts they each appear in.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*