Re: Git fork removal?

From: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
Date: Apr 28, 2005, 15:29 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0504281115210.30848-100000@iabervon.org>
In-Reply-To: <20050428091039.GI8612@pasky.ji.cz>

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> Dear diary, on Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 04:47:24AM CEST, I got a letter
> where Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org> told me that...
>
> > The thing that I think requires the symlinks is step 2, which requires
> > that there be somewhere I can run git and have it able to see a pair of
> > unrelated local heads and the relevant trees.
> 
> Just do cg-pull barkalow, to get the latest changes from that repository
> (perhaps clone should inherit branches information?).

You can pull from local repositories? I think that having the same concept for remote repositories and for different lines of local development is what confuses users.

> But if you want Linus to pull from your tree, you generally want it to
> be clean - that is, you want to manage clean separation (as Pavel Machek
> describes in his document).

I'll be using rpush and he'd have to use http-pull (I don't have rsync set up); both of these only transfer the reachable objects, so cleanliness isn't an issue.

> That is another advantage of hardlinking -
> you don't get any unrelated stuff in if you don't explicitly pull it, so
> you can keep your for-linus branch clean. I'd do cg-diff linus:this in
> the barkalow branch instead to keep this property.

But that doesn't work; when I'm preparing the second patch in the series, I want to compare linus+patch 1 against barkalow, so that I'm looking at what's left to split. That's why I need to have the unrelated heads, not just the linus head and my head based on it. If I go back to linus each time, it's more work making the patches and I don't have an easy way of telling whether I've included the same part twice or missed a part.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*