Jakub Narebski [off-list ref] writes:
Matthieu Moy wrote:
quoted
Stupid question: why .gitlink, and not .git/link or so? This file is
not versionned, I don't think it should be in the working tree.
It would be special-cased, as is .git directory not versioned, the
same way .gitlink would be not versioned (not like .gitignore).
That's how I understand it, but why 2 special cases (.git and
.gitlink) when you need one?
--
Matthieu
Matthieu Moy wrote:
Jakub Narebski [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Matthieu Moy wrote:
quoted
Stupid question: why .gitlink, and not .git/link or so? This file is
not versionned, I don't think it should be in the working tree.
It would be special-cased, as is .git directory not versioned, the
same way .gitlink would be not versioned (not like .gitignore).
That's how I understand it, but why 2 special cases (.git and
.gitlink) when you need one?
Well, in the first proposal we didn't though about idea of having
lightweight checkout .git/ directory (with .git/link, or core.link
in .git/config) to have only parts of it, perhaps overriding main
files.
--
Jakub Narebski
Poland