From: Linus Torvalds Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:13:06 GMT Subject: Re: : Networking Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20050426115609.0481401b.akpm@osdl.org> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Andrew Morton wrote: > > I don't know if it'll be successful continually merging all those trees > together. The way I did this with bk was to have a separate repo for each > tree, but I don't think I'll want 30-40 separate git trees. You really don't. With git, the only thing you need is one object store, and some way to _track_ those 30-40 separate git trees (and "track" really means "remember a single SHA1 name for their top-of-tree"). Then you can merge any combination of the 40 in the same tree. You'll get confused easily, but if you do this all with tools, it shouldn't be too bad. > So hm. I guess git did what it was supposed to do here, and that a `git > merge' would have removed the common patch. But if I take the approach of > merging all those subsystem trees I do wonder if things will come > unstuck... Well, git isn't as good at merging as BK is, and your usage sure as hell would be a horrible worst-case example, but it might actually work fine. Git merges are _cheap_ (with a capital C, and probably H as well) when they work out, and quite frankly, so far they have always worked out for me. But yeah, you'd be doing some pretty aggressive merging, using a tool that is two weeks old. It might work. I'd be interested to know ;) Linus