Re: worktrees vs. alternates

From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Date: May 16, 2018, 09:29 UTC
Message-ID: <87po1waqyc.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <A33442B1-B37D-42E1-9C58-8AB583A43BC9@gmail.com>

On Wed, May 16 2018, Lars Schneider wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> I am looking into different options to cache Git repositories on build
> machines. The two most promising ways seem to be git-worktree [1] and
> git-alternates [2].
>
> I wonder if you see an advantage of one over the other?
>
> My impression is that git-worktree supersedes git-alternates. Would
> that be a fair statement? If yes, would it makes sense to deprecate
> alternates for simplification?
>
> [1] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-worktree
> [2] https://git-scm.com/docs/gitrepository-layout#gitrepository-layout-objectsinfoalternates

It's not correct that worktrees supersede alternates, or the other way around, they're orthagonal features.

git-worktree allows you to create a new working directory connected to the same local object store.

Alternates allow you to declare in any given local object store, that your set of objects isn't complete, and you can find the rest at some other location, those object stores may or may not have more than one worktree connected to them.