On Friday 01 December 2006 23:12, Martin Waitz wrote: > hoi :) > > On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 11:06:40PM +0100, Josef Weidendorfer wrote: > > > Well, I would actually argue that you may often want to have a > > > supermodule and then at least have the _option_ to decide to not > > > fetch all the submodules. > > > > If you want to allow this, you have to be able to cut off fetching the > > objects of the supermodule at borders to given submodules, the ones you > > do not want to track. With "border" I mean the submodule commit in some > > tree of the supermodule. > > I don't think this is something special to submodules. There has been > interest in checking out only a part of the tree even before talking > about submodules and I really think this feature should be independent > to submodules. It's not about checking out part of the tree, it's about fetching only part of the objects: If you have a slow modem and want to clone a supermodule, you are not interested in fetching all the objects from some submodules. So it is more like a shallow clone. But even here, submodules are special as you have defined borders between supermodule and submodules. This gives you the freedom the introduce a submodule namespace, and allows you to point to a submodule: "I do not want you!". With shallow clone, there you do not have this option, so there, you need to use something like grafting. BTW: In your submodule implementation, is the user allowed to change the relative path of the root of some submodule, e.g. with "git-mv" ? Josef - 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