Mehdi Amini via cfe-dev <cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> writes:
>> Fair enough. It might be less confusing to use a term other that
>> "submodule" though. I've used "superproject/subproject" in the past,
>> for example, and also "host repository" and "project repository."
>
> It does not even represent the full set of possibility: having a
> *separate* "integration repository" is what *I* think would be
> better. Some people proposed submodules in the llvm repo to track the
> subprojects, with a possible auto-update on push to the other
> repos. In this case there is no "super project" or separate repo.
> I'm not trying to force a design on anyone here.
In this case I would call the integration repository the superproject
and the submodules within it the subprojects.
I'm not proposing any particular terminology, just noting that
"submodule" is potentially confusing when we're talking about abstract
concepts.
BTW, I do highly prefer we keep the separate repositories we have and
integrate them in some way for build/bisect/release. We currently only
use the LLVM portion of the ecosystem and having its repository separate
from clang/etc. eases our integration of the code into our products. If
the community decided to go with one giant repository we could use
git-subtree to split out the LLVM history but it would be an extra step
for us.
-David
_______________________________________________
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
