From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:17:08 GMT Subject: Re: Avery Pennarun's git-subtree? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20100722195653.GC4439@burratino> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 19:56, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > 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.