Hi Heiner, Jens-Heiner Rechtien píše v Út 01. 06. 2010 v 15:32 +0200:
> >> [...] Not sure if this added complexity is worth > >> the IMHO quite narrow use case - it's the first time I've heard such a > >> request. > > > > That I'm the first to voice it in a concrete request doesn't mean that > > I'm the first to complain. Hang out on the corresponding IRC channels, > > and you'll tons of complaints or sarcastic jokes (usually followed by > > how much more that developer loves git ;->) about that... > > Ah yeah, the magical touch of git which is able to make huge compressed > changesets much smaller, almost vanishing in size. :-) Git might have a > smaller storage for a given repository, granted, but I somehow doubt > that it's able to transfer huge changesets much faster than Hg. Indeed, git is magical ;-) In this case, on the server, the CWS wouldn't be separate trees, but branches (in the git meaning of the word), and so you wouldn't have to push all the changes that happened in DEV300 in the meantime (if you have them in another brach, they are reused) - ie. exactly what Christian wants. And even if they were separate trees, you are able to setup the trees (CWSes in this case) trivially to search for the missing commits (and objects, etc.) in the main tree (DEV300) first using 'alternates', before expecting the client to push them all. So, you wouldn't even need a special cws command to get the changes that happened in DEV300 into the remote CWS tree first, and still you'd save the push bandwidth. Regards, Kendy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
