Re: Git mirrors

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Eli Zaretskii writes:

 > That's still "habit" from my POV: you are used to certain workflows,
 > and bzr doesn't lend itself easily to those workflows.

Well, you're welcome to lump muscle memory of particular options and
workflows that have been thought out and refined in practice together
if you like.  But to my mind workflows involving lightweight branching
(not really implemented in bzr yet) and lightweight checkouts/branches
bound to a remote repo (a fragile emulation is the best available in
git) are more than habit.

 > Same happens to me in git: I _want_ to have separate branches, but
 > git forces me to have a separate repo for each branch, if I insist
 > on that workflow...

Actually, it doesn't.[1]  And anyway a shared repo is a pure space
optimization; it doesn't offer any improvements in VC capability.
Since both git and bzr hardlink (when available) on local branching,
you probably don't even save that much space.  (Except that I don't
think hardlinks are available on Windows?)

Really, the only reason I can think of to let git affect your
preferred workflow is lightweight checkouts, which you can emulate on
a single filesystem[2] (including NFS or CIFS), but can't have using
SSH or HTTP as the network transport.

Footnotes: 
[1]  See the --shared and --reference, and --separate-git-dir options to
git-clone for a shared repo.

[2]  See the --separate-git-dir option to git-clone.