Re: Wherefor worktrees?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 5:24 PM Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2018-09-26 11:48 AM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> >
> > I believe the main selling point of multiple worktrees is sharing
> > refs. You could easily avoid expensive clones with --local, but
> > synchronizing between different clones is not very convenient. Other
> > than that, different worktrees tend to behave like separate clones.
>
> Sharing hooks is also useful

Well yes, but for hooks I think a better way is moving hook management
back to config files. I think we have a rough idea what to do, and
AEvar highlighted the mand roadblocks elsewhere. Hopefully it will
materialize someday.

> Having used git-new-workdir for a long time, it's main deficiency for me
> is submodules (the shared bisection state didn't bother me much).  It
> would be nice if all my worktrees' submodules also shared refs.  That's
> "nice", but not "essential".

Heh I've been thinking about this a bit too. I thought separate refs
was a requirement for submodules, but if you don't actively use
branches in submodules and go with detached HEAD, it might work.
-- 
Duy



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux