Hi Bjoern, Björn Michaelsen píše v Čt 03. 06. 2010 v 17:55 +0200:
> > 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. ;) Oh sure, but then again, 'named branches' feature was terribly unstable at the time Mercurial was evaluated, and I am not sure they ever got removing named branches right. > > 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. Your repos on the server would grow substantially, while with git (with the alternates setup - one line!) they would not. Even after the push, they'd grow just by the amount of data that was actually transferred (as explained, a small fraction of what is pushed now), nothing more. Anyway - sorry, I don't want to start another git vs. hg flamewar ;-) Regards, Kendy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
