hoi :) On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 10:29:26AM +0000, Andy Parkins wrote: > On Friday 2006 December 01 09:57, Martin Waitz wrote: > > > So why do you need the url hint committed to the supermodule? > > We don't store remote information in the object database, too. > > That's why it was a hint, probably configured when you first create the > submodule connection. > > In truth, the clone will be perfectly able to get the submodule > objects from the upstream supermodule, maintaining the distributed > nature easily. that's exactly the reason why the hint is not needed. Althogh you need to have one common project object database, storing the objects of all modules. > > > I say: > > > submodulecommithash points at a commit /in the submodule/ > > > > But unluckily, this does not work. > > Eh? "Not work", we're talking about code that doesn't even exist, of > course it doesn't "work". Do you mean "doesn't work if we're using > my implementation of submodules"? Well that hardly seems like a fair > attack. Well, at first I started exactly as you described: only store the submodule commit sha1 in the parent somewhere, but don't traverse it. So this is a fair attack: your implementation already exists in http://git.admingilde.org/tali/git.git/module ;-) (ok, yes, it really is different to what you described as I stored the sha1 differently, but I really learned that it is important to be able to traverse the entire commit chain, from the root of the project to the deepest submodule.) > > You really have to be able to traverse the entire commit chain > > from the supermodule into all submodules. > > You can: when you hit a submodule tree object you set GIT_DIR to that > submodule and continue. If you don't do it like that then you have > stored submodule trees in the supermodule and it's no longer a > separate repository. Well, a submodule repository _is_ special in some ways: fsck and prune have to take the references from the supermodule into account. In this sense it is _not_ separate from the supermodule. I think that is important for the submodule repository to be independent in other ways than its object database: you should be able to exchange commits with other repositories (be they stand-alone or a submodule in another supermodule). You should be able to use log/diff/blame/whatever inside the submodule. All this does not need an object database of its own. So I chose to do it the easy way and use one object database for the entire project - and disallow git-prune in a submodule. There may be other/better ways to do this, but you have to be able to access all objects which belong the project inside the toplevel project repository. > Why you'd want to - I have no idea. What > purpose would you have for traversing the commit chain into the > submodules? The commit in the submodule is just a note of where that > submodule was during the supermodule commit in question. Things get much simpler if you have one big graph of objects. clone and especially fetch/pull naturally work at once. You can ask for all objects inside the whole project which are needed to be transferred between project version A and B, including all submodules. You can even have one bare repository for the whole project. > I notice though that you avoided my question: what does YOUR submodule > object contain? I really do want to know, as there is obviously a > fundamental difference in what I think a submodule does and what you > (and maybe everybody else) thinks a submodule does. It really only stores the commit of the submodule directly. So there is no new submodule object type. The parent has a direct link to the submodule commit in his tree object and in its index. In order to separate them from normal files or normal subdirectories, they get a special mode: they are represented as socket. -- Martin Waitz
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature