Re: Avery Pennarun's git-subtree?

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Bryan Larsen <bryan.larsen@gmail.com>
Cc: "Marc Branchaud" <marcnarc@xiplink.com>,
	"Avery Pennarun" <apenwarr@gmail.com>,
	skillzero@gmail.com, "Jakub Narebski" <jnareb@gmail.com>,
	"Jens Lehmann" <Jens.Lehmann@web.de>,
	"Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>,
	git <git@vger.kernel.org>, "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: Avery Pennarun's git-subtree?
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:48:54 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=XrAwSe9Lfr8FDT00VS5+PZDx3pvh6+hC8wy2Z@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4C4DC799.6070702@gmail.com>

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Bryan Larsen <bryan.larsen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> To me, that's what git-subtree is: an internal private mirror of an external
> repo.   Using git submodule moves that into a separately managed repo, which
> is just unnecessary hassle.  Why maintain repo called "clone of library X
> for project A" when you can just stick it inside of project A without any
> downsides?

Without any downsides?

What about merging? What about complex history? IOW, what about
_anything_ but a few extra one-liner patches?

Background: the only time I ever used CVS modules, we had submodules
for things like gcc, binutils, etc. And maintained them separately
from upstream for _years_. Not with some simple one-liner fixes, but
with big fundamental changes that couldn't be sent upstream (and
wouldn't have been accepted anyway) etc.

THAT is the problem space. Not "just a mirror of another project".

                   Linus