Another option to consider is to track patches using Drush Make which considerably lightens what you need to store in Git.
-- Kyle Mathews Blog: kyle.mathews2000.com/blog Twitter: http://twitter.com/kylemathews Company: http://eduglu.com On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Marco Carbone <[email protected]>wrote: > Since a Git clone downloads the entire Drupal repository, the Drupal > codebase is no longer so lightweight (~50MB) if you are using Git, > especially as if you clone contrib module repositories as well. > > With CVS, our usual practice with clients was to checkout core and contrib > using CVS, so that we can easily monitor any patches that have been applied, > so that they wouldn't be lost when updating to newer releases. (Drush makes > this particularly easy.) This is doable with Git as well, but now there > seems to be the added cost of having to download the full repository. This > is great when doing core/contrib development, but not really necessary for > client work. This is unavoidable as far as I can tell, but I don't think I'm > satisfied with the "just use a tarball and don't hack core/contrib" > solution, especially when patches come into play. > > Is there something I'm missing/not understanding here, or does one just > have to accept the price of a bigger codebase when using Git to manage > core/contrib code? Or is managing core/contrib code this way passe now that > updates can be done through the UI? > > -marco****
