On Saturday, 14 March 2009 at 20:22, Dennis Schridde wrote: > Am Samstag, 14. März 2009 16:55:03 schrieb Per Inge Mathisen: > > On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Dennis Schridde <devuran...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > Am Samstag, 14. März 2009 13:51:33 schrieb Per Inge Mathisen: > > >> We need an official > > >> repository that everyone work up against, directly or indirectly, and > > >> unless I am mistaken, even the linux kernel has this. > > > > > > They used a shared repository? Do you have some docs on how they propose > > > to deal with the merges & co? > > > > I am a little bit confused by this discussion. I am not aware of any > > lacking support in git for shared repositories. I thought that was > > what 'git push' was all about. > It has the support, no doubt. > But from my experience a shared repository creates an endless row of merge- > commits, because everyone pulls, works, pulls again, merges, pushes. In a non-
That could be avoided by rebasing instead of merging, I think. So you have pull, work, pull, rebase, push. As long as people only use the shared git tree, that should work. Once they start pulling from each other, things might get ugly, though. > shared repository there would be a lot less merges, because you would pull > more seldomly and only from a limited number of repositories. (It > multiplicates when several people work on the same repository.) > So while it is not impossible to work like that, it is more annoying. (And > that is why it is not recommended either.) _______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
