On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 05:57:50PM +0100, Jens Lehmann wrote:
> Am 28.03.2014 04:58, schrieb W. Trevor King:
> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 08:52:55PM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote:
> >> No the remote branch is in the upstream subproject.  I suppose I meant
> >> “the submodule's remote-tracking branch following the upstream
> >> subproject's HEAD which we just fetched so it's fairly current” ;).
> > 
> > Hmm, maybe we should change the existing “upstream submodule” to
> > “upstream subproject” for consistency?
> For me it's still an "upstream submodule" ...

We have a few existing “[upstream] subproject” references though.  I
prefer subproject, because the submodule's upstream repository is
likely a bare repo and not a submodule itself.  It's also possible
(likely?) that the upstream repository is a stand-alone project, and
not designed to always be a submodule.  However, “upstream submodule”
and “submodule's upstream” are both clear enough, and if they're the
consensus phrasing, I'd rather standardize on them than jump back and
forth between phrasings in the docs.  I can write up a patch that
shifts us to consistently use one form, once we decide what that
should be (although I'm happy to let someone else write the patch too


This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to