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

From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 4, 2013, 19:52 UTC
Message-ID: <CALkWK0mMQJfJ7M=NGJdEs3np3Y32DwKUMVEYJf7xh+X6toWwNg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFw+2wgUufJn7BcXACBQqywAGBAcZWS6N_UV8UA91G447Q@mail.gmail.com>

Linus Torvalds wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
> <artagnon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Let's compare the two alternatives: .gitmodules versus link object.
>> If I want my fork of .gitmodules, I create a commit on top.
>
> Or you could also just edit and carry a dirty .gitmodules around for
> your personal use-case.

Just take the link's buffer with you everywhere. All you have to do is git edit-link <name> and paste the file's contents there, instead of opening .gitmodules directly in your editor.

> And I don't see what you can do with the link objects that you cannot
> do with .gitmodules. That's what it really boils down to. .gitmodules
> do actually work. Your extensions would work with them too.

If it came to that, you could write a huge Perl script to solve everything with a .githack. It breaks the internal symmetry of the repository, which is why git-submodule is having such a field day. I'm trying to prove, in my series, that making fundamental changes lets us get rid of a huge amount of complexity.