Hi Dale, On Nov 30, 2014, at 8:14 AM, Dale Henrichs <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 7:51 AM, kilon alios <[email protected]> wrote: >> So far all I knew that using git for binary files was a no go, doable but >> not recommended. Thus I found strange that filetree uses binary files. > > Well the files are text files, but because the text represents structured > data, the line-based auto-merge used by git is not correct ... > > The monticello version files have been included in FileTree to make it > possible to move the packages seamlessly between Filetree-based repositories > and mcz based repositories ... without that meta data, once you move a > package to FileTree it could not be moved back into an mcz repository without > losing all of the package history. > > When I was first introducing FileTree, I thought it was important that folks > be able to test out the git waters without making an "irreversible commitment > to git." Even today I find myself needing to move packages back and forth > between git and mcz repositories, so Thierry's merge-tools has made it > possible for me to have my cake and eat it too. > > I have been threatening to remove the monticello meta data from FileTree (or > at least make it optional), but I just haven't had the time or motivation to > do so ... again Thierry's merge-tool means that I never have to deal with a > manual merge of the version file, so for me I never have to think about it ... > > As the tool sets for supporting git improve and as the community begins to > use git-based repos as their primary repository, it will make sense to remove > the monticello meta data from FileTree ... Will that mean that packages will still be able to be interchanged with Monticello? If yes, will that mean that packages will still be able to be merged with Monticello? > Dale
