[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: need help adjusting workflow to git (or vice versa)

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: need help adjusting workflow to git (or vice versa)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 07:26:19 +0200

> From: Stephen Berman <address@hidden>
> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:44:22 +0100
> Cc: address@hidden
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:10:45 -0800 Paul Eggert <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On 11/13/2014 11:51 AM, Stephen Berman wrote:
> >> I would be very surprised if either of these approaches is used by most
> >> developers using git, because if so, I'd have expected them to be part
> >> of the standard toolkit and well documented.
> >
> > "git clone" is part of the standard Git toolkit, and is well documented.  
> > It's
> > what I use for your scenario, if I understand the scenario correctly.  And
> > "git clone" should be fast enough; for Emacs it takes 1.3 seconds on my
> > 3-year-old desktop's hard disk.
> That's what Martin referred to, isn't it?


> It takes considerably longer on my older and feebler hardware, also
> compared with `bzr update' and `bzr pull --overwrite' in a shared
> repository.

Did you "git clone" from your local repo or from the remote savannah
address?  The former should be very fast.

> And the size is also not insignificant, if it means having a copy of
> the entire Emacs repository for each build (~540M).

I think if you clone locally, git uses hard links for the meta-data
(or maybe it's an optional behavior that you need to activate with
some switch, see the documentation).

> Is that really the standard procedure?  If so, I guess I'll get used
> to it, but it does surprise me.

Every VCS has its downsides.  Bzr had only separate branches
(co-located branches were initially implemented in the last version);
git has only co-located branches.  You need to work around that.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]