On Mon, Nov 20, 2006 at 03:05:47PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, 20 Nov 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > > That was shot down by Linus and I agree with him. "bind" was a > > bad idea because binding of a particular subproject commit into > > a tree is a property of the tree, not one of the commits that > > happen to have that tree. > > Yes. I think it would be a _fine_ idea to have a new tree-entry type that > points to a sub-commit, but it really does need to be on a "tree level", > not a commit level. I'm not sure I get the reason why the submodule should not be recorded on "commit level". What I'm thinking of would be that the submodule tree would just be a standard antry of a tree in the supermodule, and we could record the submodule commit (pointing to the submodule tree) in the supermodule commit. This idea came when thinking about implementing partial merges. That is, when different people are responsible for different parts of the tree, and thus when merging a given branch, each dev has to make only a partial merge of the full tree. Having submodule commits referenced directly from the supercommit would make it much easier to finalize the merge (ie. merging the full project while taking into account that some subtrees have been merged already). Best regards, -- Yann. - 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