From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 22:36:49 GMT
Subject: Re: Avery Pennarun's git-subtree?
Message-ID: <201007250036.55811.jnareb@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C488C9D.60606@gmail.com>

Dnia czwartek 22. lipca 2010 20:23, Bryan Larsen napisał:
> >
> > 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