On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 05:57:50PM +0100, Jens Lehmann wrote: > Am 28.03.2014 04:58, schrieb W. Trevor King: > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 08:52:55PM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote: > >> No the remote branch is in the upstream subproject. I suppose I meant > >> “the submodule's remote-tracking branch following the upstream > >> subproject's HEAD which we just fetched so it's fairly current” ;). > > > > Hmm, maybe we should change the existing “upstream submodule” to > > “upstream subproject” for consistency? > > For me it's still an "upstream submodule" ...
We have a few existing “[upstream] subproject” references though. I prefer subproject, because the submodule's upstream repository is likely a bare repo and not a submodule itself. It's also possible (likely?) that the upstream repository is a stand-alone project, and not designed to always be a submodule. However, “upstream submodule” and “submodule's upstream” are both clear enough, and if they're the consensus phrasing, I'd rather standardize on them than jump back and forth between phrasings in the docs. I can write up a patch that shifts us to consistently use one form, once we decide what that should be (although I'm happy to let someone else write the patch too ;). Cheers, Trevor -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
