Am 08.06.2010 23:52, schrieb Johan Herland:
> The good thing with Ævar's approach is that this is all configurable per
> branch (indeed, per commit[1]) by editing your .gitmodules file.
Yep, I think this is the sane way to do that.
> Interesting. Will the object parsing machinery handle that without hiccups?
> What if an older Git version tries to checkout/update a submodule with a 0-
> hash?
Maybe Ævar's idea of dropping such a submodule from the tree is better.
> Me too, but I suspect that if you draw the "one big repo" approach to its
> logical conclusion, there will be some demand for recursive commits.
You may be right here. But as submodules often have a detached HEAD, this
might get interesting ;-)
> [1]: Say your submodule usually tracks a branch, but you're creating some
> tag in the super-repo, and you want that tag to uniquely identify the
> submodule. You achieve this by making sure the tagged commit removes the
> relevant "branch = whatever" line from .gitmodules, and records the
> appropriate submodule version in the super-repo tree. Then, you can revert
> the .gitmodules change on the next commit to resume tracking the submodule
> branch.
>
> Now, whenever you checkout the tag, you will always get the exact same
> version of the submodule, although the submodule otherwise tracks some
> branch.
Won't work anymore when we would use 0{40} or drop it from the tree.
AFAICS always-tip and referencing a certain commit don't mix well.
--
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