On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. [...] > 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 Looks a little too clumsy for my taste. Also, I don't like the idea of having to enforce linear history for files, or getting rid of the index. I would like zit to be as lightweight a wrapper for git as possible, retaining the whole functionality. -- Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta -- 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
