From: Neal Kreitzinger <nkreitzinger@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Ardill <andrew.ardill@gmail.com>
Cc: Neal Kreitzinger <neal@rsss.com>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: nested git repos (not submodules)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:07:36 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F359528.1060603@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAH5451mU5G-_FaPkpuhKrHAt4_5wiECj=-j9wkA_Ctb=27ncQg@mail.gmail.com>
On 2/9/2012 9:47 PM, Andrew Ardill wrote:
> My understanding was that such a configuration is essentially
> tracking the same set of files in two different git repositories. The
> location of the .git is not important, I could just as easily set the
> working directory of any git repository to be a folder tracked by
> another repository.
>
> My concerns would be based primarily on the different repositories
> trying to act on the same files at the same time. Ignoring the
> sub-folder completely within the encompassing repository would avoid
> that, however you might have use cases that prohibit that.
>
WORKTREE/SUBDIR/ was already tracked by WORKTREE/.git because the files
in WORKTREE/SUBDIR/ directly correlate to WORKTREE/ files (ie.,
WORKTREE/., WORKTREE/SUBDIR2/., WORKTREE/SUBDIR3/.). This is the
published model.
> Out of interest, what itch are you scratching by using this model?
>
(I can only speculate) I think it was intended to ensure that he would
only be modifying the WORKTREE/SUBDIR/ files of WORKTREE/.git. He did
some sequence of commands with the end result of:
(a) bare repo HISPATH/SUBDIR.git
and
(b1)
WORKTREE/.git
WORKTREE/SUBDIR/
is now
(b2)
WORKTREE/.git
WORKTREE/SUBDIR/.git
which means that the files of WORKTREE/SUBDIR are now tracked by
WORKTREE/.git and WORKTREE/SUBDIR/.git, as you stated.
Due to a drop-dead short-term deadline, I am being compelled to "just
deal with it" (work around the annoyances) unless there is a dire reason
it will blow up in our faces. At this point, (b2) is more-or-less an
intermediate "integration repo" between (a) and (b1-canonical), and I'm
assuming I can just jump thru some hoops to accomplish the integration
when the time comes (unless I hear of or step on any landmines).
Now that the newsgroup has confirmed that having "a repo that tracks the
worktree of a nested repo" is not a sound model, I can advise against it
on a go-forward basis without being concerned that I'm not open to new
ideas.
v/r,
neal
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-10 22:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-10 2:34 nested git repos (not submodules) Neal Kreitzinger
2012-02-10 3:47 ` Andrew Ardill
2012-02-10 22:07 ` Neal Kreitzinger [this message]
2012-02-10 4:16 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-02-10 22:30 ` Neal Kreitzinger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4F359528.1060603@gmail.com \
--to=nkreitzinger@gmail.com \
--cc=andrew.ardill@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neal@rsss.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.