On Tue, 24 May 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
You are getting precisely the same thing you got under BitKeeper: pull
from X, you get my tree, which was composed from $N repositories. The
tree you pull was created by my running 'bk pull' locally $N times.
No. Under BK, you had DIFFERENT TREES.
What does that mean? They had DIFFERENT NAMES.
Which meant that the commit message was MEANINGFUL.
Ok, I'll fix the commit message.
As for different trees, I'm afraid you've written something that is _too
useful_ to be used in that manner.
Git has brought with it a _major_ increase in my productivity because I can
now easily share ~50 branches with 50 different kernel hackers, without
spending all day running rsync. Suddenly my kernel development is a whole
lot more _open_ to the world, with a single "./push". And it's awesome.
That wasn't possible before with BitKeeper, just due to sheer network
overhead of 50 trees. With BitKeeper, the _only_ thing that kernel hackers
and users could get from me is a mush tree with everything merged into a big
'ALL' repository.
couldn't you just have your multiple 'trees' use the same object
repository directory (still a single group of files to push), but still
have your trees with different names? it would be just a little more then
the copy of the HEAD object (you'd have to change the name in it), but it
should be easily scriptable)
or is there a limit in git that I'm overlooking that would prohibit this?
David Lang
-
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]