. Keep `linux-2.6/` part as an independent project. The work by
the project on the kernel part can be naturally exchanged with
the other kernel developers this way. Specifically, a tree
- object contained in commit objects belonging to this project
+ object contained in commit objects belonging to this sub-project
does *not* have `linux-2.6/` directory at the top.
. Keep the `appliance/` part as another independent project.
Applications are supposed to be more or less independent from
the kernel version, but some other bits might be tied to a
specific kernel version. Again, a tree object contained in
- commit objects belonging to this project does *not* have
+ commit objects belonging to this sub-project does *not* have
`appliance/` directory at the top.
. Have another project that combines the whole thing together,
so that the project can keep track of which versions of the
- parts are built together.
+ parts are built together. The Makefile is illustrated above,
+ but there might be other files and directories.
We will call the project that binds things together the
'toplevel project'. Other projects that hold `linux-2.6/` part
Also note that in this round of proposal, there is no separate
branches that keep track of heads of subprojects.
+
+`update-index --bind` is not implemented on the core side yet;
+it would involve backward incompatible changes to the index
+format.
============
Let's not forget to add the `Makefile`, and check the whole
gadget/
manual/
------------
+[NOTE]
+============
+Again, `update-index --unbind` is not implemented yet
+on the core side.
+============
Their branch added another subproject, so this did not work (or
it could be the other way around -- we might have been the one