Monotone workflow compared to Git workflow ( was RE: Git vs Monotone)

-----Original Message-----
From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org 
[mailto:git-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Linus Torvalds
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 2:18 PM

single database for git, but wants to force a full clone for 
each. Not to mention that in git, you'd normally not do 11 
clones to begin with, you'd just do 11 branches in one repo.

I have a question about this.  I asked this awhile back and didn't
really get any satisfactory answers except to use git-new-workdir, which
makes git behave a lot like monotone.  In our workflow, we do create
branches for nearly everything, but we do find that we have a need to
keep the build artifacts of those branches isolated from each other
because rebuilding is expensive.  IOW, we have this sort of workflow:

git checkout A
[work on A, build, test, do some commits]
git checkout B
[work on B, build, test, do some commits]
git checkout A
[work on A, re-build, test, do some commits]

We find ourselves constantly having to shift gears and work on other
things in the middle of whatever it is we're currently working on.  For
instance, in the scenario above, A might be branch that contains a
feature going into our next release.  B might be a bugfix and takes
priority over A, so you have to leave A as-is and start work on B.  When
I come back to work on A, I have to rebuild A to continue working, and
that's just too expensive for us.  So we use the monotone-like
new-workdir which allows us to save those build artifacts.

So, that said, I ask again, am I missing something?  Is there a better
way to do this?  How do the kernel developers do this, surely they're
switching branches back and forth having to build in-between?

			Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe 
git" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org 
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Cheers,
Craig