On 06/02/2009 10:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
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.
In the end thats the same with cvs and multiple checkouts?
#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).
No. It is unsafe if you play around in the master repository. If youre
not doing that is safe.
Andres
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
