Subject: Re: RFC: submodule terminology

From: Martin Waitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 01:03:54 +0200

hoi :)

On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 12:06:47AM +0200, Johan Herland wrote:
> For the high-level concept, "subproject" seems to me the best 
> alternative. I think it is much better than "submodule" at 
> describing that the subproject is a stand-alone project/repo in
> itself.

it may be developed independently but for the sake of the more important
bigger ("the top level project") it really is only one small part.
That and the fact that "module" is already an established term
in software makes me prefer "submodule".
For me the project is always the top-level one: the project you
currently work for.

> As for the low-level concept, I personally prefer "gitlink", but 
> I don't have any strong feelings. The fact that "gitlink" seems 
> to already be used in the code (as in resolve_gitlink_ref() etc.), 
> coupled with "dirlink" being somewhat ambiguous (i.e. may also be 
> interpreted as "(sym)link to directory") makes the case for me.

The only problem I have with gitlink is that there already was
a lot of discussion about some entirely different "gitlink", so
choosing a different name is not that bad.
Aside from that I prefer gitlink, too.

-- 
Martin Waitz