| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Managing multiple branches in git |
| Date: | 2009-06-02 20:09:42 |
| Message-ID: | 17750.1243973382@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc> writes:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> That's not the problem. The problem is that it is kept in the same
>> directory as the checked out copy. It would be a lot more usable if it
>> was possible to store it elsewhere.
> I'm not following. CVS and SVN both kept such directories "in the
> checked out copy." Recall the CSV/*,v files?
I can't speak to SVN, but that is *not* how CVS does it. There's a
small CVS/ directory, but the repository (with all the ,v files)
is somewhere else. In particular I can have N different checked-out
working copies without duplicating the repository.
> I just don't understand why you care. If the CVS directories didn't bug
> you before, why does the single .git directory bug you now?
(1) size (ok, not a showstopper)
(2) potential for error
Blowing away your working directory shouldn't result in loss of your
entire project history.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-06-02 20:10:42 | Re: Managing multiple branches in git |
| Previous Message | Emmanuel Cecchet | 2009-06-02 20:08:20 | Locks on temp table and PREPARE |