1 |
Dan Douglas posted on Thu, 24 May 2012 01:51:28 -0500 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> I don't think doing a branch of the entire tree is a good idea (well |
4 |
> maybe...). I was thinking more along the lines of subtree merges into a |
5 |
> local overlay, or perhaps submodules. To do that currently (I think) |
6 |
> would require taking the rsync tree and putting that into a repo, and |
7 |
> trying to keep it synchronized. Plus in the process you lose all |
8 |
> correspondance with upstream commits so that logs and diffs become |
9 |
> meaningless. |
10 |
|
11 |
The thing about git branches is that they cost almost nothing. If the |
12 |
whole main tree is a single git tree, and you already have that |
13 |
available, maintaining a branch consisting of what we now call an overlay |
14 |
is trivial, compared to simply maintaining the separate files, as is |
15 |
normally done now. |
16 |
|
17 |
In that regard, git is nothing like for instance svn, where branches come |
18 |
at a much higher cost, as does merging between them. (CVS... I don't |
19 |
actually know enough about to make an informed comparison. |
20 |
|
21 |
It'd be a real shame not to expose the read-only git tree to the users |
22 |
who want it. Git was /designed/ to be distributed in that manner. |
23 |
|
24 |
-- |
25 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
26 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
27 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |