Re: Git fork removal?
- From
Petr Baudis <pasky@ucw.cz>
- Date
- Apr 28, 2005, 02:12 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20050428021237.GA8612@pasky.ji.cz>
- In-Reply-To
- <Pine.LNX.4.21.0504272127400.30848-100000@iabervon.org>
Dear diary, on Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 03:31:18AM CEST, I got a letter where Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org> told me that...
Show 5 quoted lines
> I saw that "fork" was removed when going to the cg- scripts, and the > replacements don't do the symlinked trees thing. I found the symlinked > trees thing vital to my workflow, so I'm going to want to reintroduce > them, or something similar. Is there some reason you went to hardlinked > object files instead of symlinked directories?
The user. ;-)
Apparently, too many people were confused by the local/remote branches distinctions, and even I ceased to like it gradually (BTW, Cogito still supports working with them - it just does not offer any interface for manipulation with them). The current scheme is much simpler and I believe more clear.
Also, the forked repositories were not truly independent - people actually got burnt by forking and then removing the original repository.
If this breaks your workflow, could you please describe it? Perhaps we could find a good semantics to support both.
-- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. -- Steve Taylor