Re: Wherefor worktrees?
- From
Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
- Date
- Sep 27, 2018, 16:36 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CACsJy8B_xDUQjC7uGRpR6FhFVuToUwim3sjUTk9tWUfLY2LkBA@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <e7f63c0f-90dd-0e53-9721-35d2b827e101@xiplink.com>
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 5:24 PM Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xiplink.com> wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> > On 2018-09-26 11:48 AM, Duy Nguyen wrote: > > > > I believe the main selling point of multiple worktrees is sharing > > refs. You could easily avoid expensive clones with --local, but > > synchronizing between different clones is not very convenient. Other > > than that, different worktrees tend to behave like separate clones. > > Sharing hooks is also useful
Well yes, but for hooks I think a better way is moving hook management back to config files. I think we have a rough idea what to do, and AEvar highlighted the mand roadblocks elsewhere. Hopefully it will materialize someday.
> Having used git-new-workdir for a long time, it's main deficiency for me > is submodules (the shared bisection state didn't bother me much). It > would be nice if all my worktrees' submodules also shared refs. That's > "nice", but not "essential".
Heh I've been thinking about this a bit too. I thought separate refs was a requirement for submodules, but if you don't actively use branches in submodules and go with detached HEAD, it might work.
-- Duy