> you can say "well why not just make git better then it will handle any operation in any size repo imperceptibly quickly", but I think you and I both know that

> you can say "well why not just make git better then it will handle any operation in any size repo imperceptibly quickly", but I think you and I both know that isn't anywhere near as easy to implement as it is to type Good thing I didn't type that, then. That's not what the shape of my argument looks like at all. There's a massive leap between, "we don't want every clone of our repo per se to carry all the baggage of our dependencies' histories, so it would by nice to have some scheme for handling lightweight, shallow copies" and "... so we decided the right way to do that, rather than making that a first class feature of the version control system we're using, is to create a hack in the form of a new set of unrelated tools meant to circumvent our VCS's fundamentals completely—so from our its point of view, these controlled objects and the scheme we use for managing them are invisible and might as well not even exist."