On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:23 AM, W. Trevor King <wk...@tremily.us> wrote:
> 3rd party libraries sound loosely-coupled to me ;).  In one of my more
> mature projects I did a similar thing, and just used relative URLs [1]
> and sibling mirrors/forks [2,3,4].
> Cheers,
> Trevor
> [1]: https://github.com/wking/pygrader/blob/master/.gitmodules
> [2]: https://github.com/wking/pgp-mime
> [3]: https://github.com/wking/pyassuan
> [4]: https://github.com/wking/jinja2

I guess I'm still confused on how relative URLs help here. Won't the
capping commits (A and C in your first email) still be needed? Or is
there a way I can modify the local "../third-party.git" submodule repo
instead? Can you explain?

Unfortunately, the reason why I feel third party in a submodule
creates tight coupling is because:

* You can't make changes to third party libs for your feature branch
without breaking the trunk
* Merge conflicts are insane to resolve and involve two clones if
trunk maintainers modify third party binaries and you do as well.
* Feature branching requires those capping / meta commits to simply
setup your branch to be a feature branch.

Instead of just creating my branch and starting to make commits, I now
have to setup my submodule branch first. Also pull requests won't show
the changes to the third party libraries unless I do a second pull
request for the third party repo.

It just seems like a mess :-(
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