On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
<artag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The purpose of this series is to convince you that we've made a lot of
> fundamental mistakes while designing submodules, and that we should
> fix them now.  [1/7] argues for a new object type, and this is the
> core of the idea.

I don't dispute that a new link object might be a good idea, but
there's no explanation of the actual format of this thing anywhere,
and what the real advantages would be. A clearer "this is the design,
this is the format of the link object, and this is what it buys us"
would be a good idea. Also, one of the arguments against using link
objects originally was that the format wasn't stable, and in
particular the address of the actual submodule repository might differ
for different people. So when adding a new object type, explaining
*why* the format of such an object is globally stable (since it will
be part of the SHA1 of the object) is a big deal.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to