Re: [RFC] What to you think about a loose status for submodules?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Even though there has not been much more work on this item the idea has
> become much clearer for me since the last discussion. Now that sparse
> checkout is in master I would like to generalize this idea a little
> further.

Selective init/update of submodules is a fundamental design element and
the presense of "sparse checkout" does not affect it.

In the remainder of your message

> How about ...

you are talking about a change that would also apply to a project that
does not have submodules at all, and you would want to involve Nguyễn in
the discussion.

I have no strong opinion if attributes is the right vehicle to carry this
information, except for this part:

> Does the current sparse implementation work with submodule entries as
> well? Then it could be even more straightforward to implement than the
> previous idea.

What the project ships as grouping suggestions to cloners is merely a
small part of the information on submodules (others such as URL and name
are already found in .gitmodules, and .gitmodules are designed to be
extensible by allowing other "config"-ish items in it).  Separating only
the grouping info into a different file (I don't particularly care if you
use .gitattributes or something else; as long as it is not .gitmodules,
the argument is the same) is not such a good idea.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]