On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
> Dear diary, on Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 04:47:55AM CEST, I got a letter
> where Petr Baudis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> > git branch --- creates a branch from a given commit
> > (when passed empty commit, creates a branch
> > from the current commit and sets the working
> > tree to that branch)
> > Note that there is a bug in current git update - it will allow you to
> > bring several of your trees to follow the same branch, or even a remote
> > branch. This is not even supposed to work, and will be fixed when I get
> > some sleep. You will be able to do git pull even on local branches, and
> > the proper solution for this will be just tracking the branch you want
> > to follow.
>
> I must admit that I'm not entirely decided yet, so I'd love to hear your
> opinion.
>
> I'm wondering, whether each tree should be fixed to a certain branch.
> That is, you decide a name when you do git fork, and then the tree
> always follows that branch. (It always has to follow [be bound to]
> *some* branch, and each branch can be followed by only a single tree at
> a time.)
I don't think I'm following the use of branches. Currently, what I do is
have a git-pasky and a git-linus, and fork off a working directory from
one of these for each thing I want to work on. I do some work, commit as I
make progress, and then do a diff against the remote head to get a patch
to send off. If I want to do a series of patches which depend on each
other, I fork my next directory off of my previous one rather than off of
a remote base. I haven't done much rebasing, so I haven't worked out how I
would do that most effectively.
I think I can make this space efficient by hardlinking unmodified blobs to
a directory of cached expanded blobs.
-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
