Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > So I think it is important that there are commits in the submodule so > its history makes sense independently for others. I was trying to push the "just like trees" to the logical conclusion in order to see see if it leads to an absurd conclusions, or some useful scenario. I do not necessarily subscribed to Jonathan's "vision" (I do not object to it as one possible mode of operation, either). > Or how would you push out the history in the submodule in your idea? > Maybe I am missing something? What would be your use case with gitlinks > pointing to trees? Not my idea. But Stefan's message I was responding to said that object database for the superproject is the same as and mixed with object databases for the submodules, so it is plausible that push always happens at the superproject, and a mechanism to be invented (I mentioned the need for it in the message you are responding to) to enumerate all the commits bound from submodules to a range of superproject's commits would identify these trees to be pushed out. In essense, "just like trees" folks want to use the gitlinks in the superproject to only specify the tree from the submodule project that should sit there. And my point is that such a world view would lead to no need for branches in the submodule repository, no need for commits in the submodule repository, and no need for history in the submodule repository. Which may or may not be a bad thing.
