On 06/02/2009 10:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Andres Freund<andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> On 06/02/2009 09:38 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> Mark Mielke wrote:
>>>> 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? I'm
>>>> genuinely interested as I don't get it. :-)
>>>
>>> It doesn't. What bugs me is that the database (the "pulled" tree if you
>>> will) is stored in it. It has already been pointed out how to put it
>>> elsewhere, so no need to explain that.
>>>
>>> What *really* bugs me is that it's so difficult to have one "pulled"
>>> tree and create a bunch of checked out copies from that.
>>
>> I dont see were the difficulty resides?
>>
>> #Setup a base repository
>> cd /../master
>> git [--bare] clone git://git.postgresql.org/whatever .
>>
>>
>> #Method 1
>> cd /../child1
>> git clone --reference /../master/ git://git.postgresql.org/whatever .
>> cd /../child2
>> git clone --reference /../master/ git://git.postgresql.org/whatever .
>>
>> This way you can fetch from the git url without problem, but when a object
>> is available locally it is not downloaded again.
>
> Yeah but now you have to push and pull commits between your numerous
> local working copies. Boo, hiss.
In the end thats the same with cvs and multiple checkouts?
>> #Method2
>> cd /../child3
>> git clone --shared /../postgresql/ child3
>> ...
>> This way you only fetch from your "pulled" tree and never possibly from the
>> upstream one.
>
> This is so unsafe it's not even worth talking about. See git-clone(1).
No. It is unsafe if you play around in the master repository. If youre
not doing that is safe.
Andres