Re: Monotone workflow compared to Git workflow ( was RE: Git vs Monotone)
- From
Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jul 31, 2008, 21:43 UTC
- Message-ID
- <46a038f90807311443q2bbf7782kbbf339ab77376dc7@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20080731205400.GA7911@atjola.homenet>
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Björn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@gmx.de> wrote:
Show 7 quoted lines
>> So literally, if you do >> >> git clone <cntral-repo-over-network> <local> > > Hum, I guess I'm just missing something and prepare to get flamed, but > wouldn't you want that one to be bare? Otherwise, the other clones won't > see all of the original repo's branches, right?
Yes, that's why
git clone --reference /path/to/fat/checkout/.git/ <central-repo>
is far better. Each "thin" checkout sees the central repo normally, but they borrow the object store from the referenced local "fat" checkout.
cheers,
m
-- martin.langhoff@gmail.com martin@laptop.org -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff