From: Torgil Svensson <torgil.svensson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:05:56 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC] Submodules in GIT
Message-ID: <e7bda7770612160705l61d1f350n70a8ba91754491c9@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <em0fpq$45b$1@sea.gmane.org>

On 12/16/06, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
> All fine, but this does not and I think cannot protect us from the
> fact that we can have <sha1 of tree/blob> which doesn't match
> <sha1 of commit>.

True, that will be a real problem. Unless we have a bug in git, do you
see a scenario in which this is likely to happen?


> I think it would be better to have sparse/partial checkout first.
> But that is just my idea. Because with <sha1 of tree/blob> which
> is not sha1 of commit tree you might loose (I think) the ability
> to merge, for example your changes to submodule with upstream.

That's correct. I also want a sparse/partial checkout but I don't want
the full submodule path. I'm also perfectly fine (for my current
use-cases) with not being able to merge upstream unless we're tracking
the commit tree (here, we might not want to specify the tree SHA1).

I'm not trying to impose a technically fragile solution here [I don't
believe it is, but I'm not the most competent to say that either], I'm
trying to find solutions for my use cases and I had problems adapting
them to the current suggestion.


> > 3. Super-module development independent of submodules - If we have the
> > tree/blob-object with all it contents in the database many
> > git-operations can act as the link (commit) wasn't there since we have
> > access to all relevant data to work with. This makes it easy to clone
> > the super-project and work on it seamlessly without having to care
> > about submodules or mapping up submodule repository's (unless you want
> > to modify the links or the data underneath it of course).
>
> This is I think irrelevant to the fact if we have only <sha1 of commit>,
> or link object and also <sha1 of tree/blob>