Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/7] Rework git core for native submodules

From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 7, 2013, 21:24 UTC
Message-ID: <CALkWK0=nGP2J_EQM83Pv--5orAMdAPmk-3t5uF2pkJYScpM2KQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP8UFD3i2vc3OSAHRERpiPY7cRjqhkqcBN9hVW0QmMksnCPccw@mail.gmail.com>

Christian Couder wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> About generation numbers, please have a look at the thread leading to this
> message:
>
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/177146/focus=177586
>
> In short, generation numbers were not such a good idea because there were
> already existing ways to get around the problem and because there was no
> simple way to implement them without breaking other things.

Thanks for the interesting read, Christian. I didn't follow the discussion closely, and only have a passing understanding/ interest in the issue.

> My opinion is that your proposal can only be accepted if it is also a
> solution, or a big step toward a solution, to other difficult problems, like
> for example narrow/subtree clones.

Hm, a link object referring to a tree object, as opposed to a revision. I'll think about this for some time.

> So you should try to improve it by looking for other important features it
> could provide in a simple way.
> This would prove, or at least be a good sign, that it is a fundamental
> improvement to add a link object the way you describe it.

I'll look for more submodule-like features to strengthen my case.