Re: Bootstrapping into git, commit gripes at me

[Marc Singer <elf@buici.com>]

On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 06:08:52PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >>>>> "MS" == Marc Singer <elf@buici.com> writes:
> 
> MS> Does this preclude symlinking .git?  I'd like to keep one .git which
> MS> is mirrored from the net and allow for more than one working
> MS> directory.
> 
> I think people typically do this by symlinking .git/objects, not
> .git/ itself.
> 
> Presumably the reason you would want to have more than one
> working tree is so that you can keep more than one topic of
> development, one for each working tree, and make commits
> independently, right?  Which commit is the latest in each work
> tree is, unsurprisingly, stored in .git/refs/heads/master file
> in each work tree, so usually you would _not_ want to share
> things other than .git/objects/ under .git/ directory across
> work trees.
> 
> One major downside of this, which I was burned once myself
> (which is the reason for me to stop doing it), is that
> git-fsck-cache and git-prune-script would not know anything
> about the objects in the shared .git/objects reachable from
> other work trees, and can happily garbage collect objects
> necessary for other work trees.

Hmm.  Seems, then, that this precludes any sharing at all.  It isn't
so serious with git as it was wth BK.  The latter being disk hungry.

I gather that the approved solution is to have complete replicas of
the git master from Linus for each line of development.