On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:20 PM, R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I apologize for the very long message. Yes, replies to three people > are in there. The responses were appreciated and I have replied to > them where replies were warranted. > > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 2:39 AM, Joachim Durchholz <j...@durchholz.org> wrote: >> Am 28.07.2017 um 04:35 schrieb R0b0t1: >>>> >>>> The earliest versions of the Rakudo Star build system started out by >>>> trying to use Git submodules to manage packages, but it quickly proved to >>>> be >>>> unwieldy and almost impossible to understand and maintain. Perhaps the >>>> submodule ecosystem has changed since then, though. >>> >>> >>> Can you give an example of how submodules were insufficient? >> >> >> I don't know what was unwieldy for the Perl6 guys, but having to manage >> multiple repositories for a given task is always some extra steps when >> synchronizing new code to the public repositories. If one of those steps is >> forgotten, everybody will see repositories that won't work, or show weird >> problems. >> >> Submodules are built for the use case that repositories evolve independently >> of each other, subtrees for the case that they evolve in sync. It's possible >> that submodules were the wrong approach, or that subtrees didn't work well >> enough at the point in time, or that nobody found the time to set everything >> up well enough to make it really work, or for lack of knowledge how to get >> submodules to work well. >> Since everybody's time is constrained, and Perl6 is still a work in >> progress, there is a long list of things that could be improved, so it's no >> surprise to see defects. The more important question is whether defects are >> important. >> > > That is a decent enough explanation. If anyone can chime in with > specifics I am still interested, as I don't see how learning the dance > for submodules is any different than learning the dance for Git in > general. That explanation makes sense if submodules were investigated > before being used in depth, but >
Whoops. That explanation makes sense if submodules were investigated before being used in depth, but someone already commented and said that they were being used but were abandoned. R0b0t1.
