From: "Martin Langhoff" <martin.langhoff@gmail.com>
To: "Björn Steinbrink" <B.Steinbrink@gmx.de>
Cc: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"Craig L. Ching" <cching@mqsoftware.com>,
sverre@rabbelier.nl, "Git Mailinglist" <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Monotone workflow compared to Git workflow ( was RE: Git vs Monotone)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 09:43:48 +1200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <46a038f90807311443q2bbf7782kbbf339ab77376dc7@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080731205400.GA7911@atjola.homenet>
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Björn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@gmx.de> wrote:
>> So literally, if you do
>>
>> git clone <cntral-repo-over-network> <local>
>
> Hum, I guess I'm just missing something and prepare to get flamed, but
> wouldn't you want that one to be bare? Otherwise, the other clones won't
> see all of the original repo's branches, right?
Yes, that's why
git clone --reference /path/to/fat/checkout/.git/ <central-repo>
is far better. Each "thin" checkout sees the central repo normally,
but they borrow the object store from the referenced local "fat"
checkout.
cheers,
m
--
martin.langhoff@gmail.com
martin@laptop.org -- School Server Architect
- ask interesting questions
- don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first
- http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-07-31 21:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-07-31 18:13 Git vs Monotone Sverre Rabbelier
2008-07-31 18:33 ` Stephen R. van den Berg
2008-07-31 18:52 ` Petr Baudis
2008-07-31 19:02 ` Jeff King
2008-07-31 19:11 ` Craig L. Ching
2008-07-31 19:19 ` Sverre Rabbelier
2008-07-31 20:32 ` Jeff King
2008-07-31 19:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-07-31 19:28 ` Craig L. Ching
2008-07-31 19:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-07-31 20:24 ` Junio C Hamano
2008-07-31 20:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-08-23 19:23 ` Felipe Contreras
2008-07-31 20:42 ` Blum, Robert
2008-08-10 22:15 ` Robin Rosenberg
2008-08-01 9:57 ` David Kastrup
2008-07-31 19:48 ` Monotone workflow compared to Git workflow ( was RE: Git vs Monotone) Craig L. Ching
2008-07-31 20:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-07-31 20:18 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2008-07-31 20:37 ` Craig L. Ching
2008-07-31 20:54 ` Björn Steinbrink
2008-07-31 21:10 ` Avery Pennarun
2008-07-31 21:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-07-31 21:43 ` Martin Langhoff [this message]
2008-07-31 21:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-08-01 2:50 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2008-08-01 3:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-08-01 3:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-07-31 20:57 ` Sean Estabrooks
2008-07-31 21:22 ` Theodore Tso
2008-07-31 19:24 ` Git vs Monotone Theodore Tso
2008-08-01 7:23 ` Sverre Rabbelier
2008-08-01 18:00 ` Daniel Barkalow
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=46a038f90807311443q2bbf7782kbbf339ab77376dc7@mail.gmail.com \
--to=martin.langhoff@gmail.com \
--cc=B.Steinbrink@gmx.de \
--cc=cching@mqsoftware.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sverre@rabbelier.nl \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).