From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Boldi Subject: Re: git guidance Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:14:27 +0300 Message-ID: <200711282014.27299.a1426z@gawab.com> References: <20071127235237.GF15227@1wt.eu> <474D70DD.4020601@dawes.za.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin , Rogan Dawes X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Nov 28 18:36:59 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IxQqH-0001TX-EF for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:36:57 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759573AbXK1Rf7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:35:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755000AbXK1Rf7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:35:59 -0500 Received: from [212.12.190.45] ([212.12.190.45]:36063 "EHLO raad.intranet" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751586AbXK1Rf6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:35:58 -0500 X-Greylist: delayed 17116 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:35:56 EST Received: from localhost ([10.0.0.111]) by raad.intranet (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA29903; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:35:33 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, Hi! git@vger sometimes bounces, so let's leave lkml as backup. > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Rogan Dawes wrote: > > Al Boldi wrote: > > > Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > > It should not turn into an endless thread led by people who want to > > > > redefine GIT's roadmap, but experience sharing helps a lot with GIT. > > > > > > Well, now that you mentioned it, if there is one thing I dislike, it's > > > for version control to start mutilating your sources. Version Control > > > should be completely transparent. GIT isn't. > > > > Care to explain? Git is quite happy handling arbitrary binary content, > > so I find it difficult to believe that it is changing your source code > > in strange ways. > > It is nice of you to ask him to explain: Unless this handwaving claim is > substantiated, it is quite hard to argue with. Sure, the problem with GIT is that it stores the sources inside a backend container that is only accessible via GIT; iow, you can't retrieve your sources directly / transparently. One way to achieve transparency could be to allow mounting GIT on a dir-mount point. And just use that dir normally, while GIT manages all the rest in the background. Thanks! -- Al