From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 609331FC34 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 23:21:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753336AbdLHXV1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:21:27 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:52661 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753112AbdLHXV0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:21:26 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95946AF1F2; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:21:25 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=PnnFCCnt//6rYNN3Jiyd8bEi/XA=; b=RgXW3G iDe4xAg8pAT27I2AS5CnCk3b0RI8H1Aj2rtAWCXUMUQzI3lD9DJvOjZuw6Y2F9ML 1ByvrwgsBCDUyVbBGCx2IBN5RupkT/u6HNOK6AkJDGBoYgVnQxpZgYCd1hoIMDka KIQRF8OACVAfYJiX9DNUFNd9tbohzkxEYYObw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=lBluafjsl7Vx5rxn22I6dOkjRsHENVKM yIh7whQdccvD6enJDQcz6e8VKh+TLfViOBY4denXmom3OENbo4qYPfNFaqZXgVG2 NAnCiUrL4CdnlRkDzWxS77BkJf5MlH7+WHXUIqGPNB84gCty24YPc3LSEVch3nWq HsqEUv7caFs= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D169AF1F1; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:21:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DF5CAAF1F0; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:21:24 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Takashi Iwai , Jeff King , Brandon Williams , Stefan Beller Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] Makefile: use the sha1collisiondetection submodule by default References: <20171208223001.556-1-avarab@gmail.com> <20171128213214.12477-1-avarab@gmail.com> <20171208223001.556-5-avarab@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 15:21:23 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Fri, 08 Dec 2017 14:53:01 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 825FCC86-DC6E-11E7-A722-8EF31968708C-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: > That endgame allows us not force people to grab an essential part of > the codebase as an external dependency from another place, which > feels quite bad, especially when their primary interest is not in > dogfooding submodule but in building a working version of Git. > > Removing one and keeping the other between the two will make the > distribution more streamlined by removing the build-time knob we > need to tweak, but the one that gets removed does not have to be the > in-tree one that allows people to "git clone" from just one place. Perhaps this may deserve a bit more explanation. I wouldn't be so against "let's do submodule-only" if this were not SHA-1 implementation but something like gitk and git-gui. An optional part of a system that it is safe to leave to individual builders if they want to fetch and use that part *is* an ideal target to bind as a submodule to the system. It's just the "default SHA-1 implementation" is at the far opposite end of the spectrum from "an optional part", and our use of submodule to bind this code is definitely *not* because it makes sense to use submodule in that context; it is because developers (not necessarily those who consume Git sourcecode) *wanted* to use submodule there, regardless of the real merit of doing so. And that is why I do not feel entirely happy with the step 4/5 and also I feel moderately strongly against the step 5/5. These two steps have a "developer first" smell that disgusts me.