On 10/23/08, Giuseppe Bilotta <giuseppe.bilotta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 10/23/08, Giuseppe Bilotta <giuseppe.bilotta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> The principle is extremely simple: when you choose to start tracking a > >> file with Zit, > >> > >> zit track file > >> > >> Zit will create a directory .zit.file to hold a git repository > >> tracking the single file .zit.file/file, which is just a hard link to > >> file. > > > > Why not use one .zit repo and track each file on each own branch?. > > > So your proposal is to have a single .zit repo which is actually a git > repo and where each additional tracked file becomes its own branch, > and zit would take care of switching from branch to branch when zit > commands are called? I don't know if switching is necessary. With one file per pranch, the index is even not necessary. > I think this solution would have a number of problems, apart from > being generally quite messy. First of all, moving a file and its > history somewhere else means toying around with the history of a much > wider repo, whereas the current approach would mean just moving the > .zit.file dir together with the file (modulo hardlinks). Non-linear > histories for a single file would be more complex to handle, too. And > publishing just the history of one file would be damn complex. The history should be linear. Git (or zit) repository is just a container for git branches. Each branch contains only one file. Moving a file history is equivalent to "git push" + "git branch -D". Something like this (not tested): cd dst git init cd src git push dst local-branch:remote-branch git branch -D local-branch git gc > -- > Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta > -- Duy -- 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
