Re: Tight submodule bindings

2014-01-13 Thread W. Trevor King
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 02:13:46PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "W. Trevor King" writes: > > > Additional metadata, the initial checkout, and syncing down > > --- > > > > However, folks who do local submodule development will care about >

Re: Tight submodule bindings

2014-01-13 Thread Junio C Hamano
"W. Trevor King" writes: > Additional metadata, the initial checkout, and syncing down > --- > > However, folks who do local submodule development will care about > which submodule commit is responsible for that tree, because that's > going

Re: Tight submodule bindings

2014-01-13 Thread W. Trevor King
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 08:37:37PM +0100, Jens Lehmann wrote: > Am 12.01.2014 02:08, schrieb W. Trevor King: > > For folks who treat the submodule as a black box (and do no local > > development), switchable trees are all they care about. They can > > easily checkout (or not, with deinit), the sub

Re: Tight submodule bindings

2014-01-13 Thread Jens Lehmann
Thanks for the writeup, comments below. Am 12.01.2014 02:08, schrieb W. Trevor King: > Gitlinked commit hash > - > > The submodule model revolves around links to commits (“gitlinks”): > > $ git ls-tree HEAD > 100644 blob 189fc359d3dc1ed5019b9834b93f0dfb49c5851f.gitmod