Dear Steve, You email arrived just as I hit the "Send" button on my last response.
OK. Back to square 2. So two separate repos perhaps, but read my last response, sent jsut as your latest arrived! Nice to think I was close to right after all, based on my previous reading up on submodules. My opinion of submodules reflects what you say below! They are indeed horrible. [Please, savannah hackers, bear with us. Can we have two separate Git repos in the Gnuspeech project: https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnuspeech If so, I think we may have a firm decision, and I can init them as bare and populate them. Unless Steve and Marcelo decide that the inclusion of the archival change logs explicitly allows just one repo and is acceptable. I'll write again soon.] Warm regards. david On Sep 18, 2015, at 17:43 21PM, Steve Nygard wrote: > >> On 2015-09-18, at 16:37, Steve Nygard <nyg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Given those constraints, submodules are the best solution. We can add >> GnuspeechSA as a submodule of my repository. Marcelo can continue his work >> in his repository, and you can have both projects together. I'll have to >> read up a bit on submodules, since I rarely use them, but that's not a >> problem. (I believe savannah would need to have a clone of GnuspeechSA >> before we add it as a submodule, otherwise it will refer to the github one. >> Although I imagine it would be possible to update after -- I'll have to look >> at the help.) > > Hmm, I stand corrected. Submodules are horrible beyond belief! This is why > I don't use them. Way too much complexity for the goal of having a single > repository to check out. I don't think it would benefit anyone to use > submodules, alas. > > I maintain that just having two repositories, gnuspeech and gnuspeechsa, is > BY FAR the simplest solution. I don't consider wiping out the change history > an option. > > Steve. > >
