Except for a few developers, don't assume the VTK developers are comfortable with git.<br><br>That said, if the right way to do it is a ways off and if the current situation is causing a lot of trouble and/or confusion,<br>
<br>Go for it.<br><br>Bill<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Marcus D. Hanwell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:marcus.hanwell@kitware.com" target="_blank">marcus.hanwell@kitware.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Bill Lorensen <<a href="mailto:bill.lorensen@gmail.com">bill.lorensen@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> For ITK, we started with submodules for the data and after a few months<br>
> abandoned it. We had too many situations where the submodules got screwed up<br>
> because a developer did not follow the proper protocol. I can't recall the<br>
> details.<br>
><br>
> I suggest we keep things as they are until we switch over to a content based<br>
> hashing we use in ITK. Which, my the way, works great.<br>
<br>
</div>We think that may be a ways off, and any reasonable review where you<br>
look at CDash@Home would uncover a submodule screw up. I followed the<br>
ITK situation, and honestly think it was quite different with a group<br>
uncomfortable with git when submodule support was less mature. The<br>
separate repositories is also causing issues whenever a baseline needs<br>
to be changed.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Marcus<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Unpaid intern in BillsBasement at noware dot com<br>