On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:01:05 PM UTC+1, Eric Reischer wrote: > > git-archive seems interesting, but alas, I *do* want to deliver a git > repository, because there will be times (albeit rare) where we may code up > a quick on-site fix at the customer site, and want to be able to > conveniently deliver that update back to our shop. git-bundle is ideally > suited for that situation >
What I would do here (I think, but it's not easy to say from outside), if the need for a quick on-site fix arises, would be to do a quick git-init add their source code, do the quick fixes, and then bring the fixes home in shape of patch-files. > , and if I'm just using git to package up the source files, I can > accomplish the same thing just by removing the .git folder. > Perhaps, but git archive is safer, faster and easier. > I'm thinking a series of scripts that makes the necessary shallow clones > and packages up the resulting repositories is probably going to be my best > solution, and just dropping the super-repo idea. It was just a convenience > thing (there isn't any code in the top-level folder for the super-repo to > track), so it's looking like that would be providing more work than benefit. > OK, but it does sound a wee bit complicated. Whatever floats your boat :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
