Aaron Bentley wrote:

quoted text
> Linus Torvalds wrote:

>> If you want a short, human-readable name, you _tag_ it. It takes all of a

quoted text
>> hundredth of a second to to or so.

>

> But tags have local meaning only, unless someone has access to your

> repository, right?

Tags are propagated during clone, and during fetch/pull (getting changes

from repository). So in that sense they are global.
If you don't publish your repository, then neither tags, nor +

has any sense, any meaning to somebody other than local private repository.
>> Well, in the git world, it's really just one shared repository that has

quoted text
>> separate branch-namespaces, and separate working trees (aka "checkouts").

>> So yes, it probably matches what bazaar would call a checkout.

>

> The key thing about a checkout is that it's stored in a different

> location from its repository.  This provides a few benefits:

>

> - you can publish a repository without publishing its working tree,

>   possibly using standard mirroring tools like rsync.

git clone --bare
> - you can have working trees on local systems while having the

quoted text
>   repository on a remote system.  This makes it easy to work on one

>   logical branch from multiple locations, without getting out of sync.

In git we usually use "git clone --local" (with repository database

hardlinked) or "git clone --shared"/"git clone --reference "

(which automatically sets alternates, i.e. file pointing to alternate

repository database) for that. This way one gets his/her own refs

namespace, so two people can work on different branches simultaneously.
Alternate solution would be to symlink .git, or .git/objects (i.e.

repository "database").
> - you can use a checkout to maintain a local mirror of a read-only

quoted text
>   branch (I do this with http://bazaar-vcs.com/bzr/bzr.dev).

In git you can access contents _without_ checkout/working area.

For example gitweb (one of git's web interfaces) uses only repository

database and doesn't need checkout/working area.
>> Almost nobody seems to actually use it that way in git - it's mostly more

quoted text
>> efficient to just have five different branches in the same working tree,

>> and switch between them. When you switch between branches in git, git only

>> rewrites the part of your working tree that actually changed, so switching

>> is extremely efficient even with a large repo.

>

> You can operate that way in bzr too, but I find it nicer to have one

> checkout for each active branch, plus a checkout of bzr.dev.  Our switch

> command also rewrites only the changed part of the working tree.

Luben (IIRC) works this way.

--

Jakub Narebski

Poland

-

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in

the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org

More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html