On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Andreas Ericsson wrote:

quoted text
> Martin Waitz wrote:
> > 
> > But if the supermodule contains changes to the submodule, you still
> > have to change the submodule.  And this implies changing the submodule
> > HEAD or some branch.
> > 
> 
> Not really. I fail to see why HEAD needs to be changed so long as the commit
> is in the submodule's odb.

Right. A commit in the supermodule should _not_ imply a commit in the 
submodule.

Maybe I should take a look at the code, but it sounds like people are 
still trying to "mix" submodules too much. 

Think of it this way: one common use for submodules is really to just 
(occasionally) track somebody elses code. The submodule should be a 
totally pristine copy from somebody else (ie it might be the "intel driver 
for X.org" submodule, maintained within intel), and the supermodule just 
refers to it indirectly (ie the supermodule might be the "Fedora Core X 
group" which contains all the different drivers from different people).

So anything that mixes super-modules and sub-modules too much will always 
break this kind of model.

A supermodule can never "contain changes" to a submodule. A supermodule 
would always just point to the submodule, and not have any changes 
what-so-ever of its own. The submodule is self-sufficient, and always 
contains all its _own_ changes.

		Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html