Re: Question about handling of heterogeneous repositories

From: Josef Weidendorfer <josef.weidendorfer@gmx.de>
Date: Nov 30, 2005, 16:49 UTC
Message-ID: <200511301749.18073.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <81b0412b0511300701w71da125am2dcc896b4693f37f@mail.gmail.com>

On Wednesday 30 November 2005 16:01, Alex Riesen wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> On 11/30/05, Josef Weidendorfer <Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de> wrote:
> > git-mv could support this. Additional to deleting from
> > one repository and adding to the new, it could generate a remark for
> > the commit message, like:
> >
> >  Added file xxx is from remote repo '/path/myrepo' with name 'yyy'
> >  (file SHA1: 123445... from remote commit SHA1: 345667...)
> 
> That's sounds very tempting to special-case for nested repos :)

If the repo path is an URL, this works quite general. I tried to avoid adding local head names to this remark...

> Maybe use .git/objects/info/alternates in top-level repo?

Or better the .git/remotes namespace... Still, this is misusing repo-local config for multiple repos. Seems quite confusing for me.

Show 12 quoted lines

> It may 
> have side-effects of the new objects ending up in top-level repo
> if commited from top-level directory. Even then, the tools can
> be tought to stop looking for GIT_DIR in the directory closest
> to the file being commited:
>   $ pwd
>   .../top
>   $ git-commit sub1/dir/file
>   ... uses repo in .../top/sub1 instead of $(pwd)/../top/.git
> 
> Looks very messy, with a potential for lots of corner cases and
> not that tempting anymore :(

git-mv would have to do exactly something like this to detect inter-repo renames at all ;-) But in general, this is really messy.

See my suggestion in a previous thread with similar topic
 http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au/archives/git/0511/12028.html

Josef