Christian Couder wrote:
> About generation numbers, please have a look at the thread leading to this
> message:
> In short, generation numbers were not such a good idea because there were
> already existing ways to get around the problem and because there was no
> simple way to implement them without breaking other things.

Thanks for the interesting read, Christian.  I didn't follow the
discussion closely, and only have a passing understanding/ interest in
the issue.

> My opinion is that your proposal can only be accepted if it is also a
> solution, or a big step toward a solution, to other difficult problems, like
> for example narrow/subtree clones.

Hm, a link object referring to a tree object, as opposed to a
revision.  I'll think about this for some time.

> So you should try to improve it by looking for other important features it
> could provide in a simple way.
> This would prove, or at least be a good sign, that it is a fundamental
> improvement to add a link object the way you describe it.

I'll look for more submodule-like features to strengthen my case.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to