From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Barkalow Subject: Re: .gitlink for Summer of Code Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:09:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <1174825838.12540.5.camel@localhost> <20070326220302.GH22773@admingilde.org> <7vfy7rvct2.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <200703270117.59205.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Josef Weidendorfer , Junio C Hamano , Martin Waitz , Eric Lesh , Matthieu Moy , git@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Mar 27 20:10:21 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HWG7e-00027l-Jt for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 20:10:18 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934142AbXC0SJl (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:09:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S934124AbXC0SJk (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:09:40 -0400 Received: from iabervon.org ([66.92.72.58]:2751 "EHLO iabervon.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934142AbXC0SJj (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:09:39 -0400 Received: (qmail 1997 invoked by uid 1000); 27 Mar 2007 14:09:38 -0400 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 27 Mar 2007 14:09:38 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Think of it this way: if you think people find it a bit annoying that you > currently have to get all the history when you do clone (and why people > have worked on "shallow clones" in git), imagine just *how* frustrating it > is if you have to get all five-hundred subprojects when you only want to > work on one small one! Is it fair to say that subproject support means that there's a use case where everybody will need shallow clones? And that it points out natural triggers for shallowness? I don't see that the "shallow clone" mechanism is special for subprojects (and I don't think that a solution that depends on subprojects being what causes it is a good idea), but clearly it makes sense to support: (1) no clone of submodules, (2) shallow clone of submodules, and (3) full clone of submodules. Somebody working on gcc for *BSD would presumably want to get all of gcc and a shallow clone of the other 1000 submodules, right? Or they'd just clone the submodule and ignore the superproject. At least, they'd need shallow clones of a bunch of the submodules, because it's not interesting to have the superproject otherwise. -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank*