Robert Haas wrote: > And, unfortunately, I'm not sure there's a good solution. Tom could > create 1 local repository cloned from the origin and then N-1 copies > cloned with --local from that one, but this sort of defeats the > purpose of using git, because now if he commits a change to one of > them and then wants to apply that change to each back branch, he's got > to fetch that change on each one, cherry-pick it, make his changes, > commit, and then push it back to his main repository. Some of this
Why has he got to do this pushing back to his main? How about creating 1 local repository from Origin, create N-1 cloned with --local from that one for each of those "--local" ones, "git-remote add" the main origin >From then ISTM his workflow is very similar to the way he does with CVS, pulling and pushing from those multiple repositories to the central origin. He can creating the patches/diffs to apply to each the same way he does today. ISTM he'd mostly be unaware that these repositories were ever connected in some way unless he inspected that some of the files in .git had the same inodes because they came from hard links. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
