> It's mainly a clue to bad practice, in my opinion. I personally like the
> "one repository, one head" approach, and if you want multiple heads you
> just do multiple repositories (and you can then mix just the object
> database - set your SHA1_FILE_DIRECTORY environment variable to point to
> the shared object database, and you're good to go).
Maybe I just have a terminology problem?
I want to have one "shared objects database" which I keep locally and
mirror publicly at kernel.org/pub/scm/...
I will have several "repositories" locally for various grades of patches,
each of which use SHA1_FILE_DIRECTORY to point to my single repository.
So I never have to worry about getting all the git commands to switch
context ... I just use "cd ../testing", and "cd ../release".
But now I need a way to indicate to consumers of the public shared object
data base which HEAD to use.
Perhaps I should just say "merge 821376bf15e692941f9235f13a14987009fd0b10
from rsync://rsync.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/aegl/linux-2.6.git"?
That works for interacting with you, because you only pull from me when
I tell you there is something there to pull.
But Andrew had a cron job or somthing to keep polling every day. So he
needs to see what the HEAD is.
Does this make sense ... or am I still missing the point?
-Tony
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
