From: Johan Herland <johan@herland•net>
To: git@vger•kernel.org
Cc: Martin Waitz <tali@admingilde•org>
Subject: Re: RFC: submodule terminology
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 01:16:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200705210116.25079.johan@herland.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070520230352.GQ5412@admingilde.org>
On Monday 21 May 2007, Martin Waitz wrote:
> 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.
"The project you currently work for" depends on your POV. But I agree
that using the term "project" alone might be confusing. That's why I'd
rather talk about "superproject" and "subproject". That way, there's
no ambiguity at all.
> > 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.
The term "gitlink" is ambiguous/confusing? I didn't know. What's the
other meaning of gitlink?
(Unless you're talking about gitlink as in "gitlink:git[7]" which
appears all over our asciidoc documentation, but I don't think that
counts...)
Have fun!
...Johan
--
Johan Herland, <johan@herland•net>
www.herland.net
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-20 23:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-05-20 21:44 RFC: submodule terminology Martin Waitz
2007-05-20 22:06 ` Johan Herland
2007-05-20 22:59 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-05-20 23:10 ` Johan Herland
2007-05-21 6:44 ` Raimund Bauer
2007-05-21 6:52 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2007-05-20 23:03 ` Martin Waitz
2007-05-20 23:16 ` Johan Herland [this message]
2007-05-20 23:39 ` Martin Waitz
2007-05-21 0:32 ` Eric Lesh
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200705210116.25079.johan@herland.net \
--to=johan@herland$(echo .)net \
--cc=git@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=tali@admingilde$(echo .)org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox