Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261414AbVEXHzr (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 May 2005 03:55:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261419AbVEXHzr (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 May 2005 03:55:47 -0400 Received: from warden2-p.diginsite.com ([209.195.52.120]:17349 "HELO warden2.diginsite.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261414AbVEXHzi (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 May 2005 03:55:38 -0400 From: David Lang To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Netdev , Linux Kernel Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 00:55:03 -0700 (PDT) X-X-Sender: dlang@dlang.diginsite.com Subject: Re: [git patches] 2.6.x net driver updates In-Reply-To: <4292D7E1.80601@pobox.com> Message-ID: References: <4292BA66.8070806@pobox.com> <4292C8EF.3090307@pobox.com> <4292D7E1.80601@pobox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1869 Lines: 46 On Tue, 24 May 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Linus Torvalds wrote: >> >> On Tue, 24 May 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> >>> You are getting precisely the same thing you got under BitKeeper: pull >>> from X, you get my tree, which was composed from $N repositories. The >>> tree you pull was created by my running 'bk pull' locally $N times. >> >> >> No. Under BK, you had DIFFERENT TREES. >> >> What does that mean? They had DIFFERENT NAMES. >> >> Which meant that the commit message was MEANINGFUL. > > Ok, I'll fix the commit message. > > As for different trees, I'm afraid you've written something that is _too > useful_ to be used in that manner. > > Git has brought with it a _major_ increase in my productivity because I can > now easily share ~50 branches with 50 different kernel hackers, without > spending all day running rsync. Suddenly my kernel development is a whole > lot more _open_ to the world, with a single "./push". And it's awesome. > > That wasn't possible before with BitKeeper, just due to sheer network > overhead of 50 trees. With BitKeeper, the _only_ thing that kernel hackers > and users could get from me is a mush tree with everything merged into a big > 'ALL' repository. couldn't you just have your multiple 'trees' use the same object repository directory (still a single group of files to push), but still have your trees with different names? it would be just a little more then the copy of the HEAD object (you'd have to change the name in it), but it should be easily scriptable) or is there a limit in git that I'm overlooking that would prohibit this? David Lang - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/