Centralized git
- From
Javier Domingo <javierdo1@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jul 31, 2012, 12:03 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CALZVapkUu+hckMRAaNULSW5s9Q7P+78eVt1Q+ZrKFdPYb5uFVQ@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CALZVapnwGK=cKdHbZRsN0Ust7TAvFqa3AmYD7pzgoxdDxQh+uw@mail.gmail.com>
I know that currently that statement (Git centralized) is an oxymoron, but let me explain why would it be interesting.
I am currently planifying a 3D project, and I will be having large binary files. If I add a distributed VCS, the amount of disk space required will increase significantly.
Due to that, I started looking for an alternative VCS, such as svn, cvs. But none of them satisfied me, mainly because they didn't have the branch concept Git does.
I read the bzr docs, and I found that was nearly what I wanted, except for the branch concept git has. I am maybe explaining myself in the wrong way, but I hope someone understands.
What I would like, would be the posibility of having something like the history horizon in bzr, or the partial repos that git-annex provides. The idea is to have a repo with all the branches (just the head of them).
Another thing I would like to see would be being able to commit like git actually works. Though all the history wouldn't be available, making commits offline would be a great thing, althought later, when pushing, they would be just in the remote, getting erased from local.
I tryed to achieve this through porcelain commands, but didn't work the few examples I tryed.
I know this breaks with Git's main philosophy, but that is something that would be very great. For what I know, one of the bad things to deal with is that the compression algorithm is thought for text files.
I am looking for your answers,
Javier Domingo