On Saturday 16 June 2007 06:08:36 Dave McGuire wrote:
> Yep, that's pretty close to what I ended up doing. I seem to
> recall, however, that it pulled down *all* revisions to every source
> file. (this was many months and a whole lot of stressful times ago,
> so my memory of this is fuzzy)
>
It sounds like you'd missed the whole point of using git, and the difference
between a "distributed" and "centralised" revision control system. With a
distributed VCS, everyone has a full history of the source code.
This approach has a number of advantages for developers:
- very (very very) low cost branches
- "blame" on a file is processor-limited, not network- or server-limited
- same for bisecting to pin down a regression
- robust against e.g. server disk crashes
If you don't want the full history -- perhaps you only want 100 or so
revisions, so you can see what recent changes have been made -- then recent
versions of git-clone have supported a --depth option. Note that you
can't "push" new revisions from a repository cloned with --depth, but it
doesn't sound like you'd be doing that anyway.
You made a point about git being difficult to build on non-Linux systems, and
mentioned trying it a couple of years ago. Bearing in mind that git is only
a couple of months older than two years, and was developed specifically to
manage the Linux kernel history, this shouldn't be too surprising. Although
Windows support still sucks (because fork() on Windows sucks, basically) any
problems building on Unix-y platforms is a big bug and should be reported as
such.
Peter
--
Fisher Society http://tinyurl.com/o39w2
CU Small-Bore Club http://tinyurl.com/mwrc9
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0 peter-b.co.uk
Attachment:
pgpHiQ2DA33EX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user