On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
> Dear diary, on Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 03:56:03AM CEST, I got a letter
> where Daniel Barkalow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> > I often want to take a base tree, which I keep tracking some remote head,
> > and make a local working tree that starts from it. This makes "git ln -c
> > <dest>" give you a tree that you can just start working in and then diff
> > against the head you'd started from and send off.
> > Signed-Off-By: Daniel Barkalow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm sorry but you are late, I added it about a hour and half ago or so.
> :-) Check git fork. (I *want* separate command than git lntree. In fact,
> I think I should make git lntree gitXlntree.sh instead, since it is
> really internal command for git-tools and the user should probably never
> need it for anything. git lntree is too lowlevel.)
Have you not pushed since? I don't see it.
I actually first made gitlntree.sh do the forking thing, because it didn't
seem useful as is, until I noticed that merge was already using it
> Actually, I don't like the name at all, though. Some people may find
> pondering about names pointless, but when I'm going to type them in
> every day for the rest of my life, they better should not be stupid. ;-)
> So, what are your clever ideas about git fork's proper name? Or should
> we leave it as is?
I think "fork" is as good as anything for describing the operation. I had
thought about "clone" because it seemed to fill the role that "bk
clone" had (although I never used BK, so I'm not sure). It doesn't seem
useful to me to try cloning multiple remote repositories, since you'd get
a copy of anything common from each; you just want to suck everything into
the same .git/objects and split off working directories.
*This .sig left intentionally blank*
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html