From: Torgil Svensson <torgil.svensson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:38:50 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC] Submodules in GIT
Message-ID: <e7bda7770612160738w68a47790vef922804efd56c76@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <e7bda7770612160705l61d1f350n70a8ba91754491c9@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/16/06, Torgil Svensson <torgil.svensson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 also want a sparse/partial checkout but I don't want
> the full submodule path.

This might not be as problematic as we think. If we do the same
sparse/partial checkout (what's the definition here?) with the <sha1
of tree/blob> as we do with the only <sha1 of commit> case and
consider the <sha1 of tree/blob> to be a _local_ (to the
super-project) shortcut. Then we only track the submodules using the
commit - local conflicts are easier to handle, git would refuse to
commit a <sha1 of tree/blob> not present in the commit tree.

We might even consider two object types:
module: <sha1 of commit> name
link: <sha1 of commit> <sha1 of tree/blob> name