From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Riesen Subject: Re: From P4 to Git Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:14:40 +0200 Message-ID: <81b0412b0907310414x7157fecey947da960ff8be1cc@mail.gmail.com> References: <85ljm84lat.fsf@oqube.com> <85r5vxbd8e.fsf@oqube.com> <200907311122.43918.jnareb@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Arnaud Bailly , git@vger.kernel.org, Sam Vilain To: Jakub Narebski X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jul 31 13:14:51 2009 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 1MWq4Y-0002hC-E9 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:14:50 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752487AbZGaLOm convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:14:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751920AbZGaLOm (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:14:42 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f219.google.com ([209.85.218.219]:56034 "EHLO mail-bw0-f219.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751885AbZGaLOl convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:14:41 -0400 Received: by bwz19 with SMTP id 19so1126679bwz.37 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 04:14:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=JXG4qbKRCoYAmge84LCKCI1owRY+SWIhOUk2VVdtD6Y=; b=mBs/0tZlq2bu8p51sRLqfNybMcp++5oCodjrvEPOM2InmwtmQPn1SelvOr96zedmeZ kWWGicmOVlAcvz7+Xnlzahk4+Yd9M/bN25mPMrmNHu/SiL+vJ/PwCCa9xyT6+mAb+3XY 8I7CHzkw6gftKLpjWA72brzPhuFQD6uA+QZSc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=LXVNZefVVxSJedMq/VZVWf1DCd55W0K5gW88rCj+Gann/ti4vnq3ou1n3PM81QcTPS zS6rTNK+O8NEkNnpMvq7J0pttVCdjaBwva3RVB1gfv7ruw/K88nmUSfKEE9VfO2fX7go Uzx95UpMIvkoDmNmnCZ3p+udkpIzku4GqBcVA= Received: by 10.204.124.19 with SMTP id s19mr2719541bkr.6.1249038880433; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 04:14:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <200907311122.43918.jnareb@gmail.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:22, Jakub Narebski wrote: >> That's my biggest concern. We are actually using a single tree repos= itory >> approach with lot of branches. What led me to Git at first was the e= ase >> of branching and merging. I used branching and merging with Subversi= on >> and its painful. > > So it looks like you wouldn't _need_ to split source tree into separa= te > smaller repositories for performance reasons. =C2=A0Still it might be= good > idea to put separate (sub)projects into separate repositories. =C2=A0= But > I guess you can do that even at later time (although it would be best > to do this upfront). It looks like they use P4 branches. Which are NOT branches as Git understands it (a line of history). The P4 "branches" are just director= ies with some metadata regarding recording where the data in the directory were before an act of "branching" (just a server-side recursive copy). In this case (and this must be, as there are no other branches in P4), they'll have to split their repository.