Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:41:16 +0200 From: "K. Macy" <kmacy@freebsd.org> To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Official git export Message-ID: <CAHM0Q_NNUT7eECYbTm95OCBrVUzT%2BtLWMH=wLSsdS4EnMPZ0ww@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.GSO.1.10.1108292239460.1411@multics.mit.edu> References: <35765857-1314243257-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-329610575-@b2.c15.bise7.blackberry> <CAJ-Vmo=v0UkQarauKrvWKdjMTC81BwXmyhU__rnaQeL3z45L-g@mail.gmail.com> <slrnj5ddgp.4ck.vadim_nuclight@kernblitz.nuclight.avtf.net> <CAMBSHm8uX45k0M4on=5Cpw_CKoddA=4oJSNXpH7dGPt=Vy2HOw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1108261000040.48200@fledge.watson.org> <slrnj5lc58.jd1.vadim_nuclight@kernblitz.nuclight.avtf.net> <4e5ba9c3.bzHIw1KEy8R2QcK7%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <3420B331-C697-468A-80BA-B31C33804710@freebsd.org> <4e5c5b5f.moT7dLemOuteQJ5T%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <4E5C364D.7070904@freebsd.org> <CAHM0Q_Mq3YEEpB6uNymjtd=WCQuTR6gd=71EsLxJf5J0ygyjiw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.GSO.1.10.1108292220110.1411@multics.mit.edu> <CAHM0Q_N-JapN_7H_%2B59kLkwo0jb-H4LcAe48jyuLAtJkCEK_1Q@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.GSO.1.10.1108292239460.1411@multics.mit.edu>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 4:41 AM, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote: > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, K. Macy wrote: > >>> My understanding is that with git it's possible to "graft" one tree onto >>> another, so that most people only have to check out recent history, and >>> can >>> check out a separate ancient history. This has at least been proposed in >>> the context of the net-im/zephyr upstream, where development happened >>> concurrently in multiple trees (in different VCSes) for a period of time >>> maybe ten years ago. Current development is all consolidated in a single >>> subversion tree, and the proposal was to convert that repository now to >>> have >>> something to work with, and worry about getting the ancient history right >>> at >>> a later time. >>> >> >> My knowledge of git is limited but I know that git clone has the >> --depth option for specifying a shallow clone that only goes back N > > I am pretty sure that this results in a repo that is not very useful for > committing to and pushing from (though I have not really used it, myself, so > could be mistaken). Why would that be the case? The gitorious repository only goes back to 7 but is very useful. The amount of history one needs to work is usually quite limited. >> changesets. Git also has "submodule" which provides some functionality >> for the notion of subprojects which can limit what is enclosed within >> a given repo to some extent. > > True, but the word on the street around here is that it's kind of a hack, > and it doesn't really feel like it would be appropriate for splitting up > things within base. (It would, however, make some amount of sense if we > were ever crazy enough to combine two or more of base, doc/www, and ports.) Looking at the documentation it is also clear that its applicability is limited as you imply above. Using gitlinks for managing mixed repository state is clearly, if not a hackish design. limited in usability and scope. Cheershome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAHM0Q_NNUT7eECYbTm95OCBrVUzT%2BtLWMH=wLSsdS4EnMPZ0ww>