Re: bare vs non-bare <1.7 then >=1.7 ?

From: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
Date: Nov 10, 2012, 10:29 UTC
Message-ID: <CAC80649467C483086BB0C33A0BF2747@PhilipOakley>
In-Reply-To: <e4dc73e8-69f9-4695-b8f7-cbc0f04e8197@zcs>

From: "Enrico Weigelt" <enrico.weigelt@vnc.biz> Sent: Saturday, November 
10, 2012 8:23 AM

Show 9 quoted lines

> Wait, there *is* an usecase for such things, deploying trees (eg. 
> webapps)
> some server:
>
> * application is developed in git
> * the final production-system tree is maintained in certian branch
> * a post-update hook acts on a specific production branch and does
>   something like git checkout --detach <treeish>
>

I have an alternative use-case for un-trained collegues :

The network shared drive has master checked out, and the .git directory is hidden. Untrained colleagues don't know I have it as a git remote. Even if they show hidden directories they will tend to ignore it as being just another spurious directory.

I develop on my own box (local directory) on my own branch 'Philip' and features therefrom. I push my development history back to the network remote to act as a backup. Because I don't touch master I can normally push to it quite happily.

When I have some finished work I can change to 'working' on the network drive, and merge or rebase my 'Philip' branch into master, and update the network's working tree. The untrained folk now see the new updated files as if I'd simply worked on / copied into the network share and they are non the wiser (yet) that I do have proper (micro managed) history.

I can also capture any changes they made to the network share so can go back to a point in history when required. It's in matlab and is not a big code base.

Philip