The 24/07/10, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: > > > What is the issue with the current status? > > Here is one: > > $ git log --oneline -SListbox.font -- gitk-git/gitk > $ git log --oneline --follow -SListbox.font -- gitk-git/gitk > 62ba514 Move gitk to its own subdirectory > $ git log --oneline -SListbox.font -- gitk-git/gitk gitk > 207ad7b gitk: Set the font for all listbox widgets > $ I'm sorry, I don't get your point here. > > Going this way, why would we want gitk and git-gui as submodules at all? > > If we want to stop distributing them completely (though I am not > convinced that would be a good idea), then submodules would be a > good stopping point along the way to avoid changing the world too > much at a time. It depends on why we would want to split gitk and git-gui from git. If it's a packaging issue only (especially for distribution maintainers), going by the "submodule" step looks more like adding a non-valuable extra step in the "splitting packages" mainstream. Changing the world once seems better than twice. > git archive hasn’t learned to do recursive archive yet; I think > the last murmurs of that topic were [1] and [2], I understand gitk and git-gui are in the Git repository mostly for historical reason. I don't want to hurt someone here but I still don't see what both have so special against other porcelain tools not in git.git. > though it would > be simple enough to use "git archive" more than once together > with "tar rf" to take care of it by hand in this case. So, doing a tar archive of them all (with or whitout submodules) is not such an issue. -- Nicolas Sebrecht -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html