Organizing Git repositories with common nested sub-modules
Posted
by
André Caron
on Programmers
See other posts from Programmers
or by André Caron
Published on 2011-10-17T15:37:23Z
Indexed on
2014/05/26
22:02 UTC
Read the original article
Hit count: 347
I'm a big fan of Git sub-modules. I like to be able to track a dependency along with its version, so that you can roll-back to a previous version of your project and have the corresponding version of the dependency to build safely and cleanly. Moreover, it's easier to release our libraries as open source projects as the history for libraries is separate from that of the applications that depend on them (and which are not going to be open sourced).
I'm setting up workflow for multiple projects at work, and I was wondering how it would be if we took this approach a bit of an extreme instead of having a single monolithic project. I quickly realized there is a potential can of worms in really using sub-modules.
Supposing a pair of applications: studio
and player
, and dependent libraries core
, graph
and network
, where dependencies are as follows:
core
is standalonegraph
depends oncore
(sub-module at./libs/core
)network
depdends oncore
(sub-module at./libs/core
)studio
depends ongraph
andnetwork
(sub-modules at./libs/graph
and./libs/network
)player
depends ongraph
andnetwork
(sub-modules at./libs/graph
and./libs/network
)
Suppose that we're using CMake and that each of these projects has unit tests and all the works. Each project (including studio
and player
) must be able to be compiled standalone to perform code metrics, unit testing, etc.
The thing is, a recursive git submodule fetch
, then you get the following directory structure:
studio/
studio/libs/ (sub-module depth: 1)
studio/libs/graph/
studio/libs/graph/libs/ (sub-module depth: 2)
studio/libs/graph/libs/core/
studio/libs/network/
studio/libs/network/libs/ (sub-module depth: 2)
studio/libs/network/libs/core/
Notice that core
is cloned twice in the studio
project. Aside from this wasting disk space, I have a build system problem because I'm building core
twice and I potentially get two different versions of core
.
Question
How do I organize sub-modules so that I get the versioned dependency and standalone build without getting multiple copies of common nested sub-modules?
Possible solution
If the the library dependency is somewhat of a suggestion (i.e. in a "known to work with version X" or "only version X is officially supported" fashion) and potential dependent applications or libraries are responsible for building with whatever version they like, then I could imagine the following scenario:
- Have the build system for
graph
andnetwork
tell them where to findcore
(e.g. via a compiler include path). Define two build targets, "standalone" and "dependency", where "standalone" is based on "dependency" and adds the include path to point to the localcore
sub-module. - Introduce an extra dependency:
studio
oncore
. Then,studio
buildscore
, sets the include path to its own copy of thecore
sub-module, then buildsgraph
andnetwork
in "dependency" mode.
The resulting folder structure looks like:
studio/
studio/libs/ (sub-module depth: 1)
studio/libs/core/
studio/libs/graph/
studio/libs/graph/libs/ (empty folder, sub-modules not fetched)
studio/libs/network/
studio/libs/network/libs/ (empty folder, sub-modules not fetched)
However, this requires some build system magic (I'm pretty confident this can be done with CMake) and a bit of manual work on the part of version updates (updating graph
might also require updating core
and network
to get a compatible version of core
in all projects).
Any thoughts on this?
© Programmers or respective owner