On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 18:57:13 -0700 (PDT)
Blake McBride wrote:
[...]
> > > These days all that matters are web apps.
> > This is a very limited world view.
>
> Writing web apps is my least favorite programming to do (although,
> all programming is fun for me). As a consequence of a long histor
Another option might be to have a single work area, and then have several
build areas, one for each long-lived branch. Of course that only works if
you can build out-of-tree.
/M
On Oct 20, 2013 7:33 PM, "Blake McBride" wrote:
> Yes. That is what I do, and it works. The problems with it are:
>
o see the woods for the trees.
>
> Philip
>
> [1]
> http://felipec.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/analysis-of-hg-and-git-branches/
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Blake McBride
> *To:* git-...@googlegroups.com
> *Sent:* Monday, October 21, 2013 4:03 PM
>
/2013/08/27/analysis-of-hg-and-git-branches/
- Original Message -
From: Blake McBride
To: git-users@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: [git-users] GIT with large projects
I am sure this can be done. The problem is:
1. It would be a c
I am sure this can be done. The problem is:
1. It would be a complex setup and may require a lot of maintenance to
keep up to date
2. It would add a whole new potential bug element. In other words, if the
setup, or how it worked, had a problem, you'd have something to debug that
would neve
> From: Blake McBride
> Not sure what you mean about designed well, but in order to switch branches
> without having to do a full rebuild would involve:
>
> [lots of stuff]
I believe there are commercial systems that do this. They keep track
of the derived files and what source files they dep
On Sunday, October 20, 2013 12:59:55 PM UTC-5, Konstantin Khomoutov wrote:
>
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 19:34:32 +0200
> Magnus Therning > wrote:
>
> [...]
> > Well, many of the issues you mention can be solved by using a build
> > system that can take advantage of a shared cache of build objects.
See below:
On Sunday, October 20, 2013 12:56:45 PM UTC-5, Konstantin Khomoutov wrote:
>
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 03:39:50 -0700 (PDT)
> Blake McBride > wrote:
>
> > Yes, of course, creating a totally new branch from where you are
> > doesn't cause any problems because nothing changes.
> >
> > Th
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 11:05:30AM -0700, Blake McBride wrote:
> See inline comments below:
>
> On Sunday, October 20, 2013 12:34:32 PM UTC-5, Magnus Therning wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:59:21AM -0700, Blake McBride wrote:
>>> Not sure what you mean about designed well, but in order t
See inline comments below:
On Sunday, October 20, 2013 12:34:32 PM UTC-5, Magnus Therning wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:59:21AM -0700, Blake McBride wrote:
> > Not sure what you mean about designed well, but in order to switch
> > branches without having to do a full rebuild would involv
On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 19:34:32 +0200
Magnus Therning wrote:
[...]
> Well, many of the issues you mention can be solved by using a build
> system that can take advantage of a shared cache of build objects.
> Connect a CI system that builds each branch regularly and you can
> largely get around those
On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 03:39:50 -0700 (PDT)
Blake McBride wrote:
> Yes, of course, creating a totally new branch from where you are
> doesn't cause any problems because nothing changes.
>
> The problem is that, I and likely most of the world, have a handful
> of long-running branches - that already
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:59:21AM -0700, Blake McBride wrote:
> Not sure what you mean about designed well, but in order to switch
> branches without having to do a full rebuild would involve:
>
> 1. switching branches would have to auto-delete compiled modules
> (object files) for source fi
Yes. That is what I do, and it works. The problems with it are:
A. a lot of disk space
B. can't just switch to a new branch. It had to have been or would need
to be checkout out and built.
Thanks!
On Sunday, October 20, 2013 11:39:43 AM UTC-5, Wes Freeman wrote:
>
> What about having you
What about having your long lived branches be in separate checked out
folders?
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 6:39 AM, Blake McBride wrote:
> Yes, of course, creating a totally new branch from where you are doesn't
> cause any problems because nothing changes.
>
> The problem is that, I and likely most
Yes, of course, creating a totally new branch from where you are doesn't
cause any problems because nothing changes.
The problem is that, I and likely most of the world, have a handful of
long-running branches - that already exist. A full rebuild is out of the
question when it takes two hours.
When you create a branch, if you have already compiled object files, you
can keep them in your folder. You don't have to do a clean build on
creation of the branch. Then you can make your changes, do incremental
builds, and solve the problem/merge your code into the master.
The problem lies in swi
Not sure what you mean about designed well, but in order to switch branches
without having to do a full rebuild would involve:
1. switching branches would have to auto-delete compiled modules (object
files) for source files that aren't contained in the new branch in order to
avoid link time co
Hello,
according to your description, your project seems to be something like the
Linux kernel, and Git handles that just fine. Depending on your build
environment, Git branches may help you a lot, as, if it is designed well,
can prevent full rebuilds.
Cheers,
Gergely
On 19 Oct 2013 23:40, "Blake
Greetings,
I have a large application that takes about two hours to build. Sometime I
have to do partial-project commits in order to communicate development from
one area to another (I can explain further but it is irrelevant to the
question). I'd prefer (if I was using git rather than svn) t
20 matches
Mail list logo
