Jakub Narębski <jna...@gmail.com> writes:

> The point is that submodule has it's own object database.  It might
> be the same as superproject's, but you need to handle submodule objects
> being in separate submodule repository anyway.  Common repository is
> just a special case.
> By the way, this also means that proposed "extended extended SHA1"
> syntax would be useful to user's of submodules...

Not really.

I think that you gave a prime example why <treeish>:<path1>//<path2>
is not a useful thing for submodules.  When the syntax resolves to a
40-hex object name, that object name by itself is not useful.

You also need to carry an additional piece of information that lets
you identify the location of the repository, in which the object
name is valid, in the current user's context (i.e. somewhere in the
superproject where the submodule lives).  In other words, you'd need
to carry <treeish>:<path1> around anyway for the object name to be
useful, so there is no good reason why anybody should insist that
the plumbing level resolve <treeish>:<path1>//<path2> directly to an
object name in the first place.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to