From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leif Gruenwoldt Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] add update to branch support for "floating submodules" Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 10:27:28 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20111109174027.GA28825@book.fritz.box> <7vr51htbsy.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20111129220854.GB2812@sandbox-rc.fritz.box> <7vborhaqgw.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Dec 10 16:28:10 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RZOqP-0005Jy-BC for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 16:28:09 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751573Ab1LJP2A (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Dec 2011 10:28:00 -0500 Received: from mail-iy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]:62918 "EHLO mail-iy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751190Ab1LJP2A (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Dec 2011 10:28:00 -0500 Received: by iaeh11 with SMTP id h11so349432iae.19 for ; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 07:27:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=vAm5f7VQtEycCpGCTG3AlshqCAMS1scH3wg4uEh7bKg=; b=s166zRwZLJoj6fDvsndv4OyAtucdQLXggQ++W6X7llfhmyHfeClNeVR+W0WuPj8UEz ysMe41JpqBXkaK77JfFfZvM5L2Yk7+IeOlPHknGGQdVZ9SZno9O9jf8RMp66wvReWXIv dY3f+an6Xkz0A/0BEIE1G2Qf0p8AgEoINTcdc= Received: by 10.42.159.195 with SMTP id m3mr6305813icx.33.1323530879538; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 07:27:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.1.32 with HTTP; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 07:27:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <7vborhaqgw.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > So that use case does not sound like a good rationale to require addition > of floating submodules. Ok I will try another scenario :) Imagine again products A, B and C and a common library. The products are in a stable state of development and track a stable branch of the common lib. Then imagine an important security fix gets made to the common library. On the next pull of products A, B, and C they get this fix for free because they were floating. They didn't need to communicate with the maintainer of the common repo to know this. In fact they don't really care. They just want the latest stable code for that release branch. This is how package management on many linux systems works. Dependencies get updated and all products reap the benefit (or catastrophe) automatically.