Re: Bootstrapping into git, commit gripes at me

On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 06:08:52PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

"MS" == Marc Singer [off-list ref] writes:

MS> Does this preclude symlinking .git?  I'd like to keep one .git which
MS> is mirrored from the net and allow for more than one working
MS> directory.

I think people typically do this by symlinking .git/objects, not
.git/ itself.

Presumably the reason you would want to have more than one
working tree is so that you can keep more than one topic of
development, one for each working tree, and make commits
independently, right?  Which commit is the latest in each work
tree is, unsurprisingly, stored in .git/refs/heads/master file
in each work tree, so usually you would _not_ want to share
things other than .git/objects/ under .git/ directory across
work trees.

One major downside of this, which I was burned once myself
(which is the reason for me to stop doing it), is that
git-fsck-cache and git-prune-script would not know anything
about the objects in the shared .git/objects reachable from
other work trees, and can happily garbage collect objects
necessary for other work trees.

Hmm.  Seems, then, that this precludes any sharing at all.  It isn't
so serious with git as it was wth BK.  The latter being disk hungry.

I gather that the approved solution is to have complete replicas of
the git master from Linus for each line of development.