Re: best git practices, was Re: Git User's Survey 2007 unfinished summary continued

From: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>
Date: Oct 25, 2007, 15:21 UTC
Message-ID: <20071025152159.GB22103@thunk.org>
In-Reply-To: <4720AF05.3050308@op5.se>

On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 04:58:13PM +0200, Andreas Ericsson wrote:

>
> Correct. I'm working on optimizing it right now though :)

We await your patches.  :-)

Show 7 quoted lines

>> Another would be to set up a wrapper script for "git-clone" that
>> creates a separate local working directory for each branch.  So for
>> example, it might do something like this:
>>
>> #!/bin/sh
>> # Usage: get-repo <URL> [dir]
>> ...

> Not really, I'm afraid. Apart from missing out on the auto-download of
> new repos you get with "fetch = refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*",
> it seems inelegant.

You mean new branches, right?

And of course it's inelegant. You just told us we were dealing with CVS-brain-damaged corporate developers who can't be bothered to learn about the fine points of using things the git way. And I thought you said there were only a few branches, "master", maint", etc. and all the developers worked on were the tips of the branches of the corporate mothership repository.

It's like complaining that a car with manual transmission is too hard to drive, and then when someone points out how this could be done with an automatic transmission, and then complaining that that you don't have the fine control of a manual transmission. Well, of course you don't! Having that fine control requires that you *learn* how to use that fine control correctly.

The solution I presented is more elegant than what hg does with separate repositories, but sure, it does require disk space. But this disk space is cheap, even when compared with the salary costs of CVS-damanged developers. :-)

						- Ted