| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Managing multiple branches in git |
| Date: | 2009-06-03 00:31:49 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070906021731y552ce445v140f54c265d5011@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Andres Freund escribió:
>
>> git clone --reference common_repo
>> + small
>> + staying small
>> + fast
>> + windows supported
>> +- push/fetch needed
>> - possibly unsecure if you delete from the master repository - which one
>> can easily prevent
>>
>> git clone --shared
>> Essentially the same as the last above
>
> I think these are the two usable options. They will probably end up
...wait a minute. I just went and Googled this git-new-workdir thing
and it looks like it's almost exactly what we need. According to the
docs, it lets you share the same local repository between multiple
working copies, so all the commits are shared but the index is
separate for each working directory. Assuming it works, that sounds
just about perfect for Tom's use case, since it would allow
cherry-picking of commits without an intervening push/pull cycle. Did
you have some reason for passing over that as one of the usable
options?
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2009-06-03 00:33:20 | Re: Managing multiple branches in git |
| Previous Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2009-06-03 00:31:15 | Re: Managing multiple branches in git |