Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 09:56:34 +0100
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Chase Venters <chase.venters@clientec.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Question about your git habits
Message-ID: <20080223085634.GW8953@1wt.eu>
References: <200802221837.37680.chase.venters@clientec.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200802221837.37680.chase.venters@clientec.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1322
Lines: 25

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 06:37:14PM -0600, Chase Venters wrote:
> It seems to me that having multiple working trees (effectively, cloning 
> the "master" repository every time I need to make anything but a trivial 
> change) would be most effective under git as well as it doesn't require 
> creating messy, intermediate commits in the first place (but allows for them 
> if they are used). But I wonder how that approach would scale with a project 
> whose git repo weighed hundreds of megs or more. (With a centralized rcs, of 
> course, you don't have to lug around a copy of the whole project history in 
> each working tree.)

Take a look at git-new-workdir in git's contrib directory. I'm using it a
lot now. It makes it possible to set up as many workdirs as you want, sharing
the same repo. It's very dangerous if you're not rigorous, but it saves a lot
of time when you work on several branches at a time, which is even more true
for a project's documentation. The real thing to care about is not to have
the same branch checked out at several places.

Regards,
Willy

--
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/