From: Michael Nahas Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 21:13:11 GMT Subject: Re: File Systems and a Theory of Edits Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Why not "git mount" indeed! At work, I have 3 very active branches and a slow build system. Right now, when I switch to a new branch, I have to rebuild everything. Being able to "git mount" 3 snapshots in 3 directories with three different build outputs would make switching branches faster. 3 working trees would be even better. I've been wondering if I can make another working trees by creating a .git/ directory and symlinking to the .git/objects and ./git/refs of my current repository. (I could use the environment variables GIT_INDEX_FILE and GIT_WORKING_TREE, but that would require setting and resetting them. Or using a different shell.) So a true "git mount" that allowed mounting editable branches would be very useful to me. (Although, if it wasn't for that crappy build system, I prefer a single working tree.) Mike Nahas On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Michael Witten wrote: > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 14:15, Michael Nahas wrote: >> I believe the solution for xargs may be John D.'s solution - to >> "mount" the snapshot as a file system.  And the "mount" command in git >> is "git checkout".  (Now, I almost want to rename "git checkout" to >> "git remount"!) > > Why not just `git mount', though? We could have different mount points > too, so that it's easy to work with multiple `snapshots' at once (in > the spirit of bazaar and mercurial, as well). > > Perhaps `git umount' could be used to make the repository bare. > > In any case, I always find myself wishing that the standard interfaces > would make it easier to base an operation on a snapshot that is not > yet mounted as the working tree. It can be quite cumbersome to switch > the contents of the working tree. >