John Goerzen <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> [Git] has submodule support, which means we can view a logical big
> project, or individual subprojects. (darcs would have no way of
> dealing with a logical big repo, and wouldn't scale to that anyhow.)
GHC's repository is maintained as a set of darcs-1, with a wrapper
script ("darcs-all", IIRC) to act on all of them at once. That seems to
be what you're calling "submodules".
Admittedly GHC are not happy with the current darcs-1 situation, but
they were sufficiently impressed with darcs-2 that they put their
git migration plans on hold.
> Personally I am unconvinced of the merits of a monolithic (whether
> literally or logically) repo, when a simple shell script with "for"
> could suffice.
I concur, in the absence of subtree checkouts. That is, for a repo
"foo", the ability to checkout a copy of just the "foo/bar" subdir.
Obviously svn and cvs make that easy, but AFAIK no dVCS supports it
(though Mercurial claim they intend to).