Re: [git patches] 2.6.x net driver updates

[David Lang]

On Tue, 24 May 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:

> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 May 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> > > You are getting precisely the same thing you got under BitKeeper:  pull 
> > > from X, you get my tree, which was composed from $N repositories.  The 
> > > tree you pull was created by my running 'bk pull' locally $N times.
> >
> >
> > No. Under BK, you had DIFFERENT TREES.
> >
> > What does that mean? They had DIFFERENT NAMES.
> >
> > Which meant that the commit message was MEANINGFUL.
>
> Ok, I'll fix the commit message.
>
> As for different trees, I'm afraid you've written something that is _too 
> useful_ to be used in that manner.
>
> Git has brought with it a _major_ increase in my productivity because I can 
> now easily share ~50 branches with 50 different kernel hackers, without 
> spending all day running rsync.  Suddenly my kernel development is a whole 
> lot more _open_ to the world, with a single "./push".  And it's awesome.
>
> That wasn't possible before with BitKeeper, just due to sheer network 
> overhead of 50 trees.  With BitKeeper, the _only_ thing that kernel hackers 
> and users could get from me is a mush tree with everything merged into a big 
> 'ALL' repository.

couldn't you just have your multiple 'trees' use the same object 
repository directory (still a single group of files to push), but still 
have your trees with different names? it would be just a little more then 
the copy of the HEAD object (you'd have to change the name in it), but it 
should be easily scriptable)

or is there a limit in git that I'm overlooking that would prohibit this?

David Lang
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/