On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 06/02/2009 09:38 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> >> Mark Mielke wrote: >> >>> I just don't understand why you care. If the CVS directories didn't bug >>> you before, why does the single .git directory bug you now? I'm >>> genuinely interested as I don't get it. :-) >> >> It doesn't. What bugs me is that the database (the "pulled" tree if you >> will) is stored in it. It has already been pointed out how to put it >> elsewhere, so no need to explain that. >> >> What *really* bugs me is that it's so difficult to have one "pulled" >> tree and create a bunch of checked out copies from that. > > I dont see were the difficulty resides? > > #Setup a base repository > cd /../master > git [--bare] clone git://git.postgresql.org/whatever . > > > #Method 1 > cd /../child1 > git clone --reference /../master/ git://git.postgresql.org/whatever . > cd /../child2 > git clone --reference /../master/ git://git.postgresql.org/whatever . > > This way you can fetch from the git url without problem, but when a object > is available locally it is not downloaded again.
Yeah but now you have to push and pull commits between your numerous local working copies. Boo, hiss. > #Method2 > cd /../child3 > git clone --shared /../postgresql/ child3 > ... > This way you only fetch from your "pulled" tree and never possibly from the > upstream one. This is so unsafe it's not even worth talking about. See git-clone(1). ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers