On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Richard Hartmann <richih.mailingl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 18:45, Joey Hess <j...@kitenet.net> wrote: >> mr can look much nicer if you take advantage of locality and chaining. >> By locality, I mean putting a mrconfig close to the directories it >> checks out, rather than in some standards-body controlled directory like >> ~/.config. > > You mean that ~/.git-repos contains the actual repos?
By "you" are you referring to me or Joey? Yes, my intention was that ~/.git-repos contains all git repos (or at least most). > I.e. that every repo comes with its own .mrconfig? If you mean, every repo *contains* its own .mrconfig, then I don't see how that would work - wouldn't it create a chicken and egg situation prior to first checkout? > I used that approach at first, but > I feel the symlinks (here they are ;) from ~/.config/mr/available.de > to ~/.config/mr/config.d are more flexible. I like that scheme with things like apache (sites-available vs. sites-enabled) although with mr config, the same effect can by automated via the special 'skip' parameter, which to me seems nicer than manually fiddling with symlinks. > Plus, you get central management of all mr configs. Right on the money! This is the real reason I want all my mr configs in one place - I want them within a single git repo which I can version control everywhere. Then bootstrapping my entire environment is as simple as: [$HOME/.config/mr] checkout = ... chain = true > That can be handy when you want to make a global update on a machine > which does not have all your mr-controlled repos checked out. If I understand that correctly, you are saying pretty much the same thing as me. _______________________________________________ vcs-home mailing list vcs-home@lists.madduck.net http://lists.madduck.net/listinfo/vcs-home