Re: [PATCH 2/8] Doc/gitsubmodules: clearly specify advantage of submodule

From: Kaartic Sivaraam <kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com>
To: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Cc: Git mailing list <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] Doc/gitsubmodules: clearly specify advantage of submodule
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 21:28:02 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <19bb76a0-3360-65f8-4933-404addbdc767@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGZ79kYyUcun4spUKVsOb+SucCe6=1cizrfH7hrFoyKteWZ_9w@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 743 bytes --]

>>        content that is not compressed by delta computation between trees.
>> -      However you can also use submodules to e.g. hold large binary assets
>> +      Therefore you can use submodules to hold large binary assets
> 
> If this improves readability by a lot, I'd be all for it. But this use
> case is just
> exemplary. There are also cases of submodules that do not contain big files,
> but e.g. have a lengthy history with lots of small files.
> So I don't know, as I would want to keep emphasized that this is just
> an example.
> 

You're right I actually screwed up by emphasizing that was the only use
case it was envisioned for. Fixed it by replacing "Therefore" with " For
example, ..."

Thanks,
Kaartic

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 870 bytes --]