tchomby wrote: >On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:11:59PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote >If you've been working feverishly, maybe you've had to much coffee, it comes >to >the end of the day and you have to commit what you've changed. With one git >repo a simple git status will show you what you need to do. With many repos, >you would have to do git status many times, probably you'd forget to commit >some changes. Same with committing, pushing and pulling and checking out new >repos. mr lets you do these commands on multiple repos at once but it adds the >trouble of managing mr and its mrconfig file.
I have done both. One big repo with SVN, and now mr+git. I think one big repo is fine, as long as the history is not something you care about very much. By now I am too dependent on having a reasonably clean history in each project (for example to generate patches to send to collegues) to go back to the one big repo approach. For the kind of work-log stuff you mention, I use org-mode in emacs. I think the conclusions are roughly the same as when we discussed on this list whether svn might actually be better at maintaining a home directory: it depends whether you want to make snapshots, or to really use version control in your work. Both points of view are defensible; unfortunately, once one's history is a mess, there may be no reasonable way to disentangle it. I use both approaches myself: some repos (like my .org files) I just make snapshots, because I am pretty confident that I will never need to "work-with" that history. Other projects, if when I do "mr commit" there is something to commit, that probably means I abort, and go back and look at the situation more carefully. David _______________________________________________ vcs-home mailing list vcs-home@lists.madduck.net http://lists.madduck.net/listinfo/vcs-home