From: Luke Lu <git@vicaya.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 22:07:29 GMT
Subject: Re: git guidance
Message-ID: <1D40FF54-64FD-4507-8E5D-02A01F2DD8EB@vicaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <11272.1197056185@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>

On Dec 7, 2007, at 11:36 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 22:04:48 +0300, Al Boldi said:
>
>> Because WORKFLOW C is transparent, it won't affect other  
>> workflows.  So you
>> could still use your normal WORKFLOW B in addition to WORKFLOW C,  
>> gaining an
>> additional level of version control detail at no extra cost other  
>> than the
>> git-engine scratch repository overhead.
>>
>> BTW, is git efficient enough to handle WORKFLOW C?
>
> Imagine the number of commits a 'make clean; make' will do in a  
> kernel tree, as
> it commits all those .o files... :)

My guess is that Al is not really a developer (product management/ 
marketing?), what he has in mind is probably not an SCM but a backup  
system a la Mac's time machine or Netapp's snapshots that also  
support disconnected commits. I think that git could be a suitable  
engine for such systems, after a few tweaks to avoid compressing  
already compressed blobs like jpeg, mp3 and mpeg etc.

__Luke