Re: Avery Pennarun's git-subtree?

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xiplink.com>
Cc: "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>,
	"Bryan Larsen" <bryan.larsen@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 09:41:42 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <AANLkTimQywtn-0Fcr-ceLeHGeSBNROt+T=K+TowF_u5h@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4C4DB9AC.9000306@xiplink.com>

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xiplink.com> wrote:
>
> I think I should mention one aspect of what we're doing, which is that a lot
> of our submodules are based on external code, and that we occasionally need
> to modify or customize some of that code.  So it's quite nice for us to
> maintain private git mirrors of the external repos, with our own private
> branches that contain our modifications.  Although we want to get much of our
> changes incorporated into the upstream code bases, upstream release cycles
> are rarely in sync with ours.

THIS.

This is why I always thought that submodules absolutely have to be
commits, not trees. It's why the git submodule data structures are
done the way they are. Anything that makes the submodule just a tree
is fundamentally broken, I think.

That said, I'm not competent to comment on the actual user interface
issues. I can well believe that git-subtree has a nicer interface.

             Linus