From: Petr Baudis Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 02:12:37 GMT Subject: Re: Git fork removal? Message-ID: <20050428021237.GA8612@pasky.ji.cz> In-Reply-To: Dear diary, on Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 03:31:18AM CEST, I got a letter where Daniel Barkalow told me that... > 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