On 12/16/06, Torgil Svensson <torgil.svensson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 12/16/06, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > All fine, but this does not and I think cannot protect us from the > fact that we can have <sha1 of tree/blob> which doesn't match > <sha1 of commit>. True, that will be a real problem. Unless we have a bug in git, do you see a scenario in which this is likely to happen? I also want a sparse/partial checkout but I don't want the full submodule path.
This might not be as problematic as we think. If we do the same sparse/partial checkout (what's the definition here?) with the <sha1 of tree/blob> as we do with the only <sha1 of commit> case and consider the <sha1 of tree/blob> to be a _local_ (to the super-project) shortcut. Then we only track the submodules using the commit - local conflicts are easier to handle, git would refuse to commit a <sha1 of tree/blob> not present in the commit tree. We might even consider two object types: module: <sha1 of commit> name link: <sha1 of commit> <sha1 of tree/blob> name //Torgil - 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