For one reason or another I would like to "clone" a local repo including the
checked-out working tree with cp -al instead of cg-clone/git-clone, i.e.
have all files hard-linked instead of copied.
Can the copies be worked on independently without interference (with the git
tool set)?
One thing I noticed is that git-reset or probably git-checkout-index breaks
links of files that need not be changed by the reset. Example:
# make 2 files, commit
$ mkdir orig && cd orig
$ git-init-db
defaulting to local storage area
$ echo foo > a && cp a b && git-add a b && git-commit -a -m 1
Committing initial tree 99b876dbe094cb7d3850f1abe12b4c5426bb63ea
# 2nd commit modifies only one file:
$ echo bar > a && git-commit -a -m 2
# create the copy:
$ cd ..
$ cp -al orig copy
$ cd copy
# working files are hard-linked:
$ ls -l
total 8
-rw-r--r-- 2 jsixt users 4 Nov 16 19:24 a
-rw-r--r-- 2 jsixt users 4 Nov 16 19:23 b
# nuke a commit:
$ git-reset --hard HEAD^
$ ls -l
total 8
-rw-r--r-- 1 jsixt users 4 Nov 16 19:24 a
-rw-r--r-- 1 jsixt users 4 Nov 16 19:24 b
I'd have expected that the hard-link of b remained and only a's link were
broken. Does it mean that git-reset writes every single file also for large
trees like the kernel? I cannot believe this. Can someone scratch the
tomatoes off my eyes please?
-- Hannes
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006, Johannes Sixt wrote:
For one reason or another I would like to "clone" a local repo including the
checked-out working tree with cp -al instead of cg-clone/git-clone, i.e.
have all files hard-linked instead of copied.
It works, but I don't think you should depend on it.
Can the copies be worked on independently without interference (with the git
tool set)?
We _tried_ to make sure it is ok, but since it's not a normal mode of
operation, I would not guarantee it.
One thing I noticed is that git-reset or probably git-checkout-index breaks
links of files that need not be changed by the reset.
Yes and no. They do _not_ actually break links of files that they know
stay the same, but your example breaks the internal knowledge by using
that "cp -al". That changes the modification time of the inodes, so git
thinks that the files _may_ have changed, and when you do a "git reset",
it will overwrite them all.
Example:
# make 2 files, commit
$ mkdir orig && cd orig
$ git-init-db
defaulting to local storage area
$ echo foo > a && cp a b && git-add a b && git-commit -a -m 1
Committing initial tree 99b876dbe094cb7d3850f1abe12b4c5426bb63ea
# 2nd commit modifies only one file:
$ echo bar > a && git-commit -a -m 2
# create the copy:
$ cd ..
$ cp -al orig copy
$ cd copy
# working files are hard-linked:
$ ls -l
total 8
-rw-r--r-- 2 jsixt users 4 Nov 16 19:24 a
-rw-r--r-- 2 jsixt users 4 Nov 16 19:23 b
# nuke a commit:
$ git-reset --hard HEAD^
$ ls -l
total 8
-rw-r--r-- 1 jsixt users 4 Nov 16 19:24 a
-rw-r--r-- 1 jsixt users 4 Nov 16 19:24 b
I'd have expected that the hard-link of b remained and only a's link were
broken. Does it mean that git-reset writes every single file also for large
trees like the kernel? I cannot believe this. Can someone scratch the
tomatoes off my eyes please?
If you do a
git update-index --refresh
(or, more easily, a "git status", which will do the index refresh for you)
before you do the "git reset", you will get:
$ ls -l
total 8
-rw-r--r-- 1 jsixt users 4 Nov 16 19:24 a
-rw-r--r-- 2 jsixt users 4 Nov 16 19:24 b
like you want to. The reason "git reset" overwrites _both_ files in your
example is that the stat() information for those files changed, so "git
reset" thinks they are both dirty and both need to be rewritten.
That said, I would seriously suggest that you try these things out, and
realize that most people do _not_ use the hardlinked approach. For all I
know, some piece of git might change some files in-place. I don't _think_
we do, and it would strictly speaking be a bug, but because people don't
use it that way, you'd be the guinea pig.
I think we'll happily fix any bugs you find, but that may not make you any
happier if the bug corrupted your lifes work ;)
In general, you might want to use
git clone -l -s
instead, but that will _not_ hardlink the actual checked-out contents, so
it's not going to get the kind of sharing you look for. On the other hand,
especially with good maintenance (doing "git repack -l -d -a" etc), you
may end up sharing _more_ that way at least in the repository object
database (but never in the actual checked-out directories).