Re: Avery Pennarun's git-subtree?

["Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>]

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