I would say yes and no, but yes the clone command can do it. But branching and CI get a bit more complicated. Pushing and reviewing changes gets more complicated to get the overview. If the functionality and especially the release cycle is different the submodules still have great values. As always your product and repo structure is a mix of different considerations and always a compromise. I think the additions in git the last years have made the previous really bad pain points with bigger repos less annoying. So that I now see more situations it works well.

I always recommend keeping all testing in the same repo as the code that affects the tests. It keeps tracking changes in functionality easier, needing to coordinate commits, merging, and branches in more than one repo is a bigger cognitive load.

It’s also easier to work if one simple git command can get everything you need. There is a good case for a bigger nono-repo. It should be easy to debug tests on all levels else it’s hard to fix issues that the bigger tests find. Many new changes in git make the downsides of a bigger repo less hurtful and the gains now start to outweigh the losses of a bigger repo.

I agree that in most cases it’s more of an E2E or integratiuon test, not sure of the need to split into different repo, and well in the end I’m not sure that would have made any big protection anyhow.

LiveNation has fixed the issue that artists got paid for playing live, not the companies can take that cut as well.

I’ll say losing its protection is an over-simplification. Yes, when a significant military target is misusing the protected signs they can be ignored. You still however are not allowed to break the first rules around minimising any civilian losses. So the civilian people in the area are still protected, they don’t lose their protection. Injuries to civilians should always be kept minimal. If the hospital is cleared out and is only used for military operations (treating wonder soldiers is not a military operation here) then the symbols of the hospital don’t have any protection. No, if you attach from within anything that is protected, you should expect to be attacked. At the same time, any attack on the enemy has to be proportional and should always strive to minimize civilian losses. Including civilian material losses. An example is a sniper hiding in a civilian building. It’s probably a war crime to bomb the house. Even when there are no civilians in the house. If there is a full platoon using the same place for defense, and the terrain is hard, it is probably ok for the same bombing. If the building also has a few hundred civilians, well it is back in the probable war crimes to bomb it out and some other ways of taking the objective have to be considered. This even looks at the house without any special protection. Same with an ambulance, if there are enemy combatants in the ambulance attacking you, of course, you can take it out. If there are enemy combatants in the ambulance that are not attacking you, you can take them prisoner. But you can’t shoot first to make sure there are no combatants in it. For me, if there has been a bombing of a hospital building with masses of patients inside, it’s a clear war crime. Even if there were a few military in the same building.

There are protected symbols such as the red cross and red crescent that you are not allowed to misuse. But it is also clear that everyone is responsible for not doing any war crimes. So even if your enemy does a war crime you are not allowed. Normally the only protected places along the ones you have listed are hospitals. All have to do their best to protect civilians, you are not allowed to engage an enemy if there are big risks of damaging no-combatants, e.g. if a small group of enemy combatants is traveling through an area filled with civilians, you are not allowed to target that area just because the few targets. Military targets have to travel is areas with civilians all the time. Targeting civilians is always a war crime. All actions have to be proportional. There is never an excuse to commit a war crime. Even if the enemy targets hospitals, like Russia, is accused of in Ukraine, that does not give Ukraine forces any permission to attack Russian hospitals. If Hamas shoots civilians, it doesn’t excuse IDF to do the same. Even if IDF shoots civilians, Hamas is not allowed to do the same. In technical terms, you could discuss the theoretical coverage of the Geneva Convention as such for the Gaza strip. The amendments around it may or may not regulate how Israel and IDF are allowed to operate. It was written for regular wars between nations, if, when, how, and stuff get into civil wars. What happens then is a bit more unclear. There are regulations about occupied territories, that Gaza falls into.

Because of the geneva conventions about protections civilians.

Attacking a hospital is not a warcrime if the hospital is used for military operations.

It is, you have the right to defend yourself if the opponent is attacking from inside. But no even if the enemy is doing a war crime by using non-combatants as protection you are not allowed to engage them in that situation. You are allowed to inspect a hospital or ambulance to make sure the enemy isn’t using it to transport or hide munitions. You are not allowed to attack anything marked with protected signs, such as the Red Cross, red crescent, or red diamond. If you as a solder break these rules, even on a direct order you are still personally responsible and might be judged in national or international courts. In practice, it might be hard to get soldiers to stand trial for these crimes. But it has happened. All my education in this has been in Swedish from the Swedish armed forces so some translations might be wrong.