Am Thu, 03 Jun 2010 17:28:00 +0200 schrieb Jan Holesovsky <[email protected]>:
> > 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. Just as mercurial would do if we would be using a multiple head repo instead of multiple heads. So git is no more magical there than hg. ;) > 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. Again that would actually be just as trivial with hg if we would not have that "one head repos!!1!eleven!" dogma. For example a hook could simply pull from DEV300 before applying a changeset. Or even simpler a cronjob pulling from DEV300 to the cws repos regularly would solve the problem. IMHO most devs are able to handle a two-head (master and cws) repo easily by now. But I guess Heiner has another opinion. BR, Bjoern --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
