On Wed, 16 May 2018, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > On Wed, May 16 2018, Lars Schneider wrote: > > > I am looking into different options to cache Git repositories on build > > machines. The two most promising ways seem to be git-worktree [1] and > > git-alternates [2]. > > > > I wonder if you see an advantage of one over the other? > > > > My impression is that git-worktree supersedes git-alternates. Would > > that be a fair statement? If yes, would it makes sense to deprecate > > alternates for simplification? > > > > [1] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-worktree > > [2] https://git-scm.com/docs/gitrepository-layout#gitrepository-layout-objectsinfoalternates > > It's not correct that worktrees supersede alternates, or the other > way around, they're orthagonal features. > > git-worktree allows you to create a new working directory connected > to the same local object store. > > Alternates allow you to declare in any given local object store, > that your set of objects isn't complete, and you can find the rest > at some other location, those object stores may or may not have more > than one worktree connected to them. just to be clear here, there should be nothing about how alternates are set up for a repository that should affect the normal behaviour of working trees for that repository, correct? i never thought there was, i just thought i'd make absolutely sure. rday
