You shouldn’t be pulling an external project as a submodule, that’s just coupling yourself way way too tightly to external code.
You're no more tightly coupled than if you zip that repo up, and put it on an internal server. It's the exact same code you've just changed the distribution method.
And my whole point is that wouldn't be necessary if Git had a version of submodules that worked properly!
You guys seriously lack imagination.
Also note the drop in Chrome OS mirrors the rise in Linux so I wouldn't rule out this just being user agent changes.
Why do they even have two lines for OS X and macOS? It's the same thing.
Misguided investment IMO. Smart glasses hardware is still at least a decade from being something that normal people would want.
Not my experience. More like 50% coding/debugging, 25% meetings, 25% admin/helping people/procrastinating.
Yes I'm aware where Git came from.
Large files don’t work with git, as it always stores the whole history on your drive.
Not any more. That's only the default. Git supports sparse checkouts and blobless checkouts both of which only get a subset of a repo. And actually it has supported --depth for as long as I remember.
Libraries are not always a suitable solution. You just haven't worked on the same projects I have and you can't imagine all the things submodules are used for.
On top of that, I can't force all third party projects to turn their repos into nice easily installable packages. Especially if they're using a language that doesn't have a package manager.
So what? You can manually merge them. File locking is also a common solution (LFS supports that).
The level of "you're holding it wrong" here is insane.
That can work in some cases, but it's usually not that great for first party projects where you want to be able to see and edit the code, and most package managers are OS or language specific so they don't work well with multi-language project or projects using a language that doesn't have a good package manager (SystemVerilog for example).
People always say this, and I have seen it happen occasionally. But in practice when it happens it's usually fairly obvious and not that confusing (especially with git blame).
The frustration I've experienced from missing comments is several orders of magnitude more than the frustration I've experienced from outdated comments. I think mostly this is an excuse to be lazy and not write comments at all.
Well, git is for source control, not binary artefacts
Only because it is bad at binary artefacts. There's no fundamental reason you shouldn't be able to put them in version control.
It's not much of an argument to say "VCSes shouldn't be able to store binaries because they aren't good at it".
What are your requirements? What do you need this for?
Typically there's a third or first party project that I want to use in my project. Sometimes I want to be able to modify it too (soft fork).
And why do you think everyone else needs the same?
Because I've worked in at least 3 companies who want to do this. Nobody had a good solution. I've talked to colleagues that also worked in other companies that wanted this. Often they come up with their own hacky solutions (git subtree, git subrepo, Google's repo, etc. etc. - there are at least half a dozen of these tools).
It’s quite possible you are doing it wrong.
No offence, but your instinctive defence of Git and your instant leap to "you're holding it wrong" are a pretty dead giveaway that you haven't stopped to think about how it could be better.
I know. Then they process those user agent strings to decide what OS it is. The question is why are they treating OSX and macOS as different OSes when they are the same? It was literally just a rebrand.