Re: Avery Pennarun's git-subtree?
- From
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jul 24, 2010, 22:36 UTC
- Message-ID
- <201007250036.55811.jnareb@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <4C488C9D.60606@gmail.com>
Dnia czwartek 22. lipca 2010 20:23, Bryan Larsen napisał:
Show 20 quoted lines
> > > > Using git-subtree has its warts too: I don't think for example that there is > > a way to get a log _automatically excluding_ history subtree-merged > > subprojects. Or is it there? > > > > It works exactly right for me when I used git-subtree in "squashed" > mode. Changes which were done in tree show up separately in the log, > changes which were pulled in via git-subtree pull show up as a single > summary entry in the log. > > This discussion has been about how to improve git submodules, which is > sorely needed. However, it's quite clear that git submodules will > never work as well as git subtrees in certain quite common situations. > If fixed, git submodules will be more appropriate in other situations. > However, I'm not asking to remove git submodules or prevent anybody > from fixing them, I'm just asking that git subtree be merged. > > Does anybody actually oppose the merger of git-subtree, which has (at > least) hundreds of users despite its out-of-tree status?
I am very much *for* merging git-subtree into git core. It is not that much different from e.g. "git submodule" or "git remote" porcelain commands.
-- Jakub Narebski Poland