| The miscommunication is in your mind. Every software out there has defects. Bugs, performance issues, UX issues, etc. To assume that anyone in this thread actually means that submodules have no defects whatsoever... well... that's just creating a straw man to tear down because you're grumpy or something. The issue appears to be with your understanding of what "bad" means in this context. When the OP (and commenter I was responding to) says "bad", they're referring to the overall experience of using git submodules. That specifically does not include the minor fixes/improvements you'd find in a changelog. By your definition, all software is "bad" because all software has defects in varying degrees. That of course makes the entire conversation pointless and pedantic. Git submodules work just fine when they're used properly. I've been using them for years without issue and so have many other commenters here. Are there things we (the users of git submodules) would like to see improved? Of course! But that doesn't violate the statement that there is "nothing bad" about submodules in the context of this discussion. I really hope this helps you navigate conversations with a little more nuance. If not, that's okay too. Have a nice weekend. |
Ah, here's the part where things went wrong.
I said "what's good or bad", which is not a judgement of the overall experience. It's the same thing as "uses and misuses" from a different angle.
Talking about what software is better at and worse at is a good response to "why is it bad?". "No it isn't" is mostly a waste of time, especially when a lot of people have bad experiences.
And don't say that the miscommunication is in my mind when you glossed over the word "good" entirely.
> By your definition, all software is "bad"
By my definition, all software has bad elements and bad contexts. And good ones, too. Asking where those lie is not pedantic or pointless at all.
> that doesn't violate the statement that there is "nothing bad" about submodules in the context of this discussion.
If an "overall experience" being good enough means that there is "nothing bad", I'm not the one lacking nuance. You've just obliterated nuance.