From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from fmmailgate01.web.de ([217.72.192.221]:53169 "EHLO fmmailgate01.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932128Ab0ATID6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2010 03:03:58 -0500 From: Markus Heidelberg To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git tree repositories Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:04:44 +0100 Cc: Johannes Stezenbach , Patrick Boettcher , Hans Verkuil , Linux Media Mailing List , Douglas Landgraf References: <4B55445A.10300@infradead.org> <20100119112057.GC9187@linuxtv.org> <4B55A915.1000207@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <4B55A915.1000207@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201001200904.44258.markus.heidelberg@web.de> Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Mauro Carvalho Chehab, 2010-01-19: > Yes. I personally prefer to have a bare clone (bare trees have just > the -git objects, and not a workig tree), and several working copies. > I do the work at the working copies, and, after they are fine, I push > into the bare and send the branches from bare to upstream. Do you know git-new-workdir? It's included in the contrib area of the git installation. Instead of cloning your own local repository to get a new working directory, with this script you really only get a new working directory and can work in it as if it was the original clone. Then you don't have to deal with pushes between local repositories. Markus