Messages in this thread | | | From | David Lang <> | Date | Tue, 24 May 2005 00:55:03 -0700 (PDT) | Subject | Re: [git patches] 2.6.x net driver updates |
| |
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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |