Christian Couder wrote: > About generation numbers, please have a look at the thread leading to this > message: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/177146/focus=177586 > > 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html