On Saturday 02 December 2006 21:58, Martin Waitz wrote:
So I was not against the link object itself (initially I wanted to do it
this way, too), only agains the information which was proposed to be
stored there. Up to now I haven't found anything which makes sense to
store next to the submodule commit to define the identity of the
submodule.
Isn't it enough reason that a porcelain probably wants to store meta
information for a given submodule, giving the need to put a name/identity
to it?
Josef