On 26 June 2011 15:49, Wyatt Epp <wyatt.epp@...> wrote:
> As for the latter part, the size of a git repo becoming umanageable
> over time had not occurred to me, I'm afraid-- would it work to use
> shallow clones? Otherwise, the herd-wise division is probably
> acceptable. Need to think about that one more.
--depth <depth>
Create a shallow clone with a history truncated to the specified
number of revisions. A shallow repository has a number of
limitations (you cannot clone or fetch from it, nor push from nor
into it), but is adequate if you are only interested in the recent
history of a large project with a long history, and would want to
send in fixes as patches.
It would be ok perhaps for non-contributing users to use shallow
clones, but in my understanding, shallow clones limit you to doing
what you could do with a tar file of the specified revision, which
basically makes it impractical for people who are developing on it,
and would mean every new developer would get a progressively longer
time in order to do a complete check out.
( Unless of course we had some sort of periodic refresh where history
was discarded/rebased into nonexistence , but that is really the same
problem with different faces )
--
Kent
perl -e "print substr( \"edrgmaM SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3,
3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );"
http://kent-fredric.fox.geek.nz
|
