Stefan Beller <[email protected]> writes:
>>> +[[def_submodule]]submodule::
>>> + A <<def_repository,repository>> inside another repository. The two
>>> + repositories have different history, though the outer repository
>>> + knows the commit of the inner repository.
>>
> ... But correctness trumps brevity indeed.
I do not think the correct way is that much longer, though.
A repository inside another repository. The two repositories have different
history
A repository that holds the history of a separate project inside another
repository
Heh, they are the same length, no?
>
>>
>> A repository that holds the history of a separate project
>> inside another repository (the latter of which is called
>> superproject).
>
> This is better than what I proposed, but confusing. When naming
> a project a submodule, my mental standpoint is the superproject.
> ("This project has the submodule foo and bar"). But In your description
> the superproject is called "another repository".
That is because you are adding an entry for "submodule" to the
glossary, no? I was writing from submodule's point of view, i.e. "I
(submodule) is inside another repository, and my project is separate
from that other repository's".
>> The containing superproject knows about the
>> names of (but does not hold copies of) commit objects of the
>> contained submodules.
>
> That makes sense to point out here. Though should we also introduce
> "superproject" now?
Yes, that is what I was hinting at.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
