Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/7] Rework git core for native submodules

Ramkumar Ramachandra [off-list ref] writes:

As far as I can tell, I'm completely unbiased: I have no vested
interests in either implementation,...
...
Frankly, I was hoping that atleast one or two people on the thread
would take my side of the argument (or atleast tell me that I'm not
deranged), but that hasn't happened.

Aren't these two quite contradicting?

After listening to what others tell one with an unbiased mind and
finding that nobody agrees with what one initially proposed, an
unbiased person would step back, take a deep breath and think again,
before insulting the intelligence of others with a "dissapointed",
like this:

I'm already prepared for the worst case: I'll be forced to dump all my
work and be disappointed with the git community.

Would it be possible that (at least some part of, or possibly all
of) your ideas had some merit, but with all your hostility against
the current system and the work that went behind it, you did not
communicate well enough to make others understand you?

What I found very hard to read in this thread was that your messages
all went like this:

 1. In the current system, I have to be at the top level of a
    submodule to work in it (or some other problems).

 2. I will fix it in a more "elegant" way.

 3. I have to have a new object at the submodule path, not the
    current "submodule is a commit bound at the submodule path, and
    information about the submodule is in .gitmodules".

There was very little concrete explanation on how #3 leads to #2,
i.e. the overall design of your new system and how it will work,
other than you would read what we currently write in .gitmodules
from a new kind of object.

When an alternative solution was suggested, all your responses were
full of subjective "inelegant" and "ugly", and at least I couldn't
read much substance in it (here, the usual me might add "maybe
others differ", but after reading this thread, I strongly suspect
that others share this problem).