On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted text
> Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> "Giuseppe Bilotta" <giuseppe.bilotta@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:23 AM, Jean-Luc Herren <jlh@gmx.ch> wrote:
>>
>>>> If you decide against a shared repository, maybe you want to
>>>> consider to not use ".zit.file/", but ".zit/file/" as the
>>>> repository?  This would reduce the clutter to a single directory,
>>>> just like with ".git".  And moving files around wouldn't be that
>>>> much complicated.
>>>
>>> Right. I'll give that a shot.
>>
>> By the way RCS which I use for version control of single files use
>> both approaches: it can store 'file,v' alongside 'file' (just like
>> your '.zit.file/' or '.file.git/'), but it can also store files on
>> per-directory basis in 'RCS/' subdirectory (proposed '.zit/file/' or
>> '.zit/file.git/' solution)
>
> I am not opposed to the wish to track a single file (but I have to say I
> am not personally in need for such a feature), but I have to wonder from
> the technical point of view if one-repo-per-file is the right approach.

I just had what's probably a silly thought.

how close is a zit setup to a subproject setup?

David Lang
--
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