Re: Managing multiple branches in git

Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc> writes:
>
>> 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.
>

Ah - my mistake. It's been too long since I used CVS. CVS keeps the
metadata describing what you have, but not the 'pristine copy' that SVN
keeps.

>> 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

Perhaps you could describe the 'blowing away your working directory
shouldn't result in loss of your entire project history'?

Yes, if that's the only copy you have - this is true. But, you would
normally have at least one copy, and everybody else will also have a
copy. Linus has joked about not needing backups, since he can recover
his entire project history from places all over the Internet.

As a "for example", you could have a local repo that you publish from.
Your work spaces could be from that local repo. Others pull from your
local repo.

For a small project I have, I keep the SVN / centralized model. People
upload their changes with 'git push', and pick up updates with 'git
pull' ('cvs update'). Whatever works best for you - but it's all
available. Just because your workspace happens to have a copy of your
entire project history doesn't necessarily mean that blowing away your
working directory results in loss of your entire project history. Think
multiple redundant copies. It's a feature - not a problem. :-)

Cheers,
mark

--
Mark Mielke <mark(at)mielke(dot)cc>