On Monday 21 May 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johan Herland <johan@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Sunday 20 May 2007, Martin Waitz wrote: > >> hoi :) > >> > >> I think we should agree to one name for what currently is named > >> submodule / subproject / dirlink / gitlink. > >> > >> Or use one name for the low-level plumbing (have a tree entry > >> which points to another commit): dirlink or gitlink and another > >> one for the high-level UI think: submodule or subproject. > >> But then we should use those names consequently. > >> > >> Oppinions? > > > > For the high-level concept, "subproject" seems to me the best > > alternative. I think it is much better than "submodule" at > > describing that the subproject is a stand-alone project/repo in > > itself. > > I was wondering if we can get away by just calling them > "projects", "projects containd in the superproject", etc., as I > tend to agree with Linus, who used the term "superproject > support" in his talk, that this is not really about creating > "subproject" which are somehow different from ordinary projects, > but more about supporting superprojects that can contain/point > at other projects, which we did not have before 1.5.2 happened. I agree that superproject is probably the best term of all. However, I think it's a good idea to be explicit so as to avoid unnecessary confusion. My vote therefore goes to "superproject/subproject" rather than "superproject/project". ...Johan -- Johan Herland, <johan@xxxxxxxxxxx> www.herland.net - 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
