[git-users] Can I limit the set of files that git checks to see if they were modified?
Say I have a huge source tree. And I know that only files X, Y, and Z have changed. Is there a way (through a plug-in or otherwise) for me to tell git to ignore every other file when I do a status, commit, etc.? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [git-users] Using a FUSE with git?
I found this recent article: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/11/microsoft-and-github-team-up-to-take-git-virtual-file-system-to-macos-linux/?comments=1=80 It appears that MS plans on porting GVFS to mac and Linux. If that is true, then it seems to me that my best course is to just wait for that to happen. It seems to be exactly what I need. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [git-users] Using a FUSE with git?
I do not know much of anything about repo. I did a couple minutes of research just now, and that appears to be a python script that invokes git under the covers. I cannot see how that would do what I need. I was hoping for something at the file-system level that would make a set of links and changed files appear to be the entire (huge) working directory. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [git-users] Using a FUSE with git?
People outside of Google/Microsoft are capable of developing sophisticated tools as well. Reading around, it looks like people are working on this. So it's just a matter of time, it seems. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [git-users] Using a FUSE with git?
Is that only for Windows? If it runs in Linux, then yes that is exactly what I'd need. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[git-users] Using a FUSE with git?
At my job, we unfortunately used bzr for many years. It was so slow that several years ago we broke up the repository into separate pieces thinking that individuals would only need to branch the part they need to modify. Finally us developers have convinced the management to allow us to switch to git. So we are in the process of doing that now. However, I am intrigued by Google's use of a mono-repository. I'm pondering about the idea of combining our repositories again and even including ALL packages that we depend on into one BIG repository. The problem, of course, is every time we do a clone we'd be copying a LOT of data around. So I was thinking, what if we wrote a FUSE (Filesystems in User Space) that used very little space, but exposed a virtual working directory to the user? So for example, at first, a clone would be nothing more than a link to the revision (or manifest or whatever...) when the user cd's into directory and reads the files, it retrieves the content of those files straight from a central repository somewhere. Then if a user writes a file, then only that is maintained in his local tree. When he commits, the new revision is written to the git repository, and his git-fuse-FS would clear out his committed local files and refer to the new revision again. Heck, at my work, we are all on the same network, so perhaps we could have a single shared git repository with multiple git-fuse-FS workspaces pointing to that. Maybe we can commit all the binaries too. If we had a good build system like bazel that guarantees correctness, then it seems to me that the workflow would be extremely fast. When one does a checkout, they'd have all the executable right there. They change a couple files, do a bazel build, and only the changed .o's, libs, and would be written locally, and he could run with that. Is this possible? Does anything like this exist already? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
