Phillip Susi wrote:
quoted text
> Al Boldi wrote:
> > IOW, git currently only implements the server-side use-case, but fails
> > to deliver on the client-side.  By introducing a git-client manager that
> > handles the transparency needs of a single user, it should be possible
> > to clearly isolate update semantics for both the client and the server,
> > each handling their specific use-case.
>
> Any talk of client or server makes no sense since git does not use a
> client/server model.

Whether git uses the client/server model or not does not matter; what matters 
is that there are two distinct use-cases at work here:  one on the 
server/repository, and the other on the client.  

quoted text
> If you wish to use a centralized repository, then
> git can be set up to transparently push/pull to/from said repository if
> you wish via hooks or cron jobs.

Again, this only handles the interface to/from the server/repository, but 
once you pulled the sources, it leaves you without Version Control on the 
client.

By pulling the sources into a git-client manager mounted on some dir, it 
should be possible to let the developer work naturally/transparently in a 
readable/writeable manner, and only require his input when reverting locally 
or committing to the server/repository.


Thanks!

--
Al

-
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