On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 17:11, Dmitry Smirnov <divis1969@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Dmitry Potapov <dpotapov <at> gmail.com> writes: > > >> Actually, in most use cases, there is no reason to have more than one >> working tree. Git is designed to work well with plenty branches and one >> working tree. So, switching between two branches and recompiling a few >> changed files is much faster then going to another directory and try to >> work there, because when you go to another directory, you may hit cold >> cache and disk is *slow*... Another thing is that you can do a lot of >> things without checking out some branch. You can grep any revision in >> your repository, you can insect any file from it, etc and you do not >> have to checkout this revision in your working tree. > > Shouldn't I even worry about my not yet commited changes before switching the > branch? commit them before you switch. you could: - commit them to the current branch before you switch the branch. - commit them to a new branch before you switch - use git stash to move your changes aside. > I would say that this approach does not work if the build and test could take > significant time. While in CR fix I don't want to wait for a build to complete > before I countinue with another bug/fix. That is why I'm curious about > few working trees... You don't have to wait to comitting to your own branches, but do make sure to run your usual builds and tests before pushing or asking another to pull changes from you. // Ben -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html