Yngve Nysaeter Pettersen venit, vidit, dixit 21.12.2012 21:13:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 16:49:21 +0100, Matthieu Moy
> <matthieu....@grenoble-inp.fr> wrote:
>> "Yngve Nysaeter Pettersen" <yn...@opera.com> writes:
>>> The split command will create a new repository for all files foo in a
>>> folder (path/foo) and their commit history.
>>> The replant command reverses that process, re-adding the path prefix
>>> for each file. It may be possible to extend that process into one that
>>> automatically reintegrates the new commits in the original history,
>>> but I never had time to complete that work.
>>> I did originally add the "replant" functionality into my version of
>>> the git-subtree script, but given the number of commits in the
>>> original repository, git-subtree turned out to be inefficient, due to
>>> the use of temporary files (tens of thousands of files IIRC).
>>> Those problems led to my development of git-splitter in Python
>>> (bypassing the problem of temporary files), but just including the
>>> functionality I needed, join was not one of those functions.
>> That still doesn't answer the question: why did you need to write a new
>> tool instead of extending git-subtree?
> The primary problem with git-subtree was that I ended up with a temporary
> file directory containing 100+K files, which I tracked back to being used
> to manage the commit-to-tree mapping. On Windows, at least, that literally
> slowed down the process to a crawl.
>> If one doesn't use "replant", is your tool different from git-subtree?
> No, it is not different. However, my tool will use RAM, not diskspace to
> manage information.
That is some valuable input. It can help improve git-subtree for Windows
users, or replace it by something else.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html