From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.176.0/21 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [RFC] Submodules in GIT Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 14:26:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: References: <20061130170625.GH18810@admingilde.org> <457061A7.2000102@b-i-t.de> <200612012306.41410.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 22:27:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: sf , git@vger.kernel.org, Martin Waitz Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org In-Reply-To: <200612012306.41410.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de> X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.161 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GqGqe-0003bs-CV for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 01 Dec 2006 23:27:12 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1162113AbWLAW1J (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Dec 2006 17:27:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1162112AbWLAW1J (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Dec 2006 17:27:09 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.25]:7861 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1162113AbWLAW1H (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Dec 2006 17:27:07 -0500 Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (fw.osdl.org [65.172.181.6]) by smtp.osdl.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id kB1MQqjQ011667 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Fri, 1 Dec 2006 14:26:52 -0800 Received: from localhost (shell0.pdx.osdl.net [10.9.0.31]) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id kB1MQpfK029662; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 14:26:51 -0800 To: Josef Weidendorfer Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Josef Weidendorfer wrote: > > > > Well, I would actually argue that you may often want to have a supermodule > > and then at least have the _option_ to decide to not fetch all the > > submodules. > > If you want to allow this, you have to be able to cut off fetching the > objects of the supermodule at borders to given submodules, the ones you > do not want to track. With "border" I mean the submodule commit in some > tree of the supermodule. > > This looks a little bit like a shallow clone No. I would say that it looks more like a "partial checkout" than a shallow clone. A shallow clone limits the data in "time" - we have _some_ data, but we don't have all of the history of that data. In contrast, a submodule that we don't fetch is an all-or-nothing situation: we simply don't have the data at all, and it's really a matter of simply not recursing into that submodule at all - much more like not checking out a particular part of the tree. So if a shallow clone is a "limit in time", a lack of a module (or a lack of a checkout for a subtree in general - you could certainly imagine doing the same thing even _within_ a git repository, and indeed, we did discuss exactly that at one point in time) is more of a "limit in space".