Re: worktrees vs. alternates

From: Sitaram Chamarty <sitaramc@gmail.com>
Date: May 17, 2018, 00:43 UTC
Message-ID: <20180517004355.GA9431@sita-lt.atc.tcs.com>
In-Reply-To: <5156717b-6fc9-b792-dfa4-1ba48ac50333@linuxfoundation.org>

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 04:02:53PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> On 05/16/18 15:37, Jeff King wrote:
> > Yes, that's pretty close to what we do at GitHub. Before doing any
> > repacking in the mother repo, we actually do the equivalent of:
> > 
> >   git fetch --prune ../$id.git +refs/*:refs/remotes/$id/*
> >   git repack -Adl
> > 
> > from each child to pick up any new objects to de-duplicate (our "mother"
> > repos are not real repos at all, but just big shared-object stores).
> 
> Yes, I keep thinking of doing the same, too -- instead of using
> torvalds/linux.git for alternates, have an internal repo where objects
> from all forks are stored. This conversation may finally give me the
> shove I've been needing to poke at this. :)

I may have missed a few of the earlier messages, but in the last 20 or so in this thread, I did not see namespaces mentioned by anyone. (I.e., apologies if it was addressed and discarded earlier!)

I was under the impression that, as long as "read" access need not be controlled (Konstantin's situation, at least, and maybe Peff's too, for public repos), namespaces are a good way to create and manage that "mother repo".

Is that not true anymore? Mind, I have not actually used them in anger anywhere, so I could be missing some really big point here.

sitaram