hoi :)

On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 02:51:49PM +0100, Stephan Feder wrote:
quoted text
> If you work in the supermodule, even if it is in the code of the
> submodule, you only commit to the supermodule. The submodule does not
> "know" about these changes after step 1.

I think we are using totally different definitions of "submodule".

For me a submodule is responsible for everything in or below a certain
directory.  So by definition when you change something in this
directory, you have to change it in the submodule.
You can't change the submodule contents in the supermodule without also
changing the submodule.
This is just like you can't commit a change to a file without also
changing the file.

Then the supermodule just records the current content of the entire
tree.  The only new thing is that instead of simple files there are now
submodules and that are also recorded.

quoted text
> Why do you mix up supermodule and submodule? The way I see your proposal=
=20
quoted text
> you cannot change submodule and supermodule independently. That is a=20
> huge drawback.

No, this is the benefit you get by introducing submodules.
Why would you want to introduce a submodule when it is not linked to the
supermodule?

--=20
Martin Waitz