Re: Avery Pennarun's git-subtree?

From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Date: Jul 22, 2010, 20:17 UTC
Message-ID: <AANLkTilhKR5wuJPPIF1SiRcTJ0fmz1oqp_NfuSSuKMOn@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100722195653.GC4439@burratino>

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 19:56, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> Avery Pennarun wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately everything built *on top of* Linus's file format
>> contribution has turned out to be a disaster.
>
> Aside: this kind of statement might make it unlikely for exactly
> those who would benefit most from your opinions to read them.
>
> Well, that is my guess, anyway.  I know that I have not found the time
> to read your email (though I would like to) because I suspect based on
> such sweeping statements that it would take a while to separate the
> useful part from the rest.
>
> Of course I am glad to see people thinking about these issues.
> My comment is only about how the results get presented.

Well, it's not like Linus is the image of calmness when attacking something he perceives as crap design either >:)

Anyway, to answer Bryan's question. My comments in previous messages shouldn't be interpreted as opposition to git-subtree being merged at all. It's clearly very useful, especially for cases where git-submodule is wanting. I'd be happy to review a patch that integrated it into the Git tree.

But it's also clear that we have a lot of tribal knowledge about the lackings of git submodule / git subtree. It would be *really* useful if people like Avery and Jens which have obviously thought hard about the submodule/subtree issues would draft up some (calmly written) docs about how the two differ (with comparison tables etc.).

That'd be a very helpful resource for Git users in deciding which one to use.