From: Daniel Barkalow Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:29:47 GMT Subject: Re: Git fork removal? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20050428091039.GI8612@pasky.ji.cz> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: > Dear diary, on Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 04:47:24AM CEST, I got a letter > where Daniel Barkalow 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*