On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
"Giuseppe Bilotta" <giuseppe.bilotta@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:23 AM, Jean-Luc Herren <jlh@xxxxxx> wrote:
If you decide against a shared repository, maybe you want to
consider to not use ".zit.file/", but ".zit/file/" as the
repository? This would reduce the clutter to a single directory,
just like with ".git". And moving files around wouldn't be that
much complicated.
Right. I'll give that a shot.
By the way RCS which I use for version control of single files use
both approaches: it can store 'file,v' alongside 'file' (just like
your '.zit.file/' or '.file.git/'), but it can also store files on
per-directory basis in 'RCS/' subdirectory (proposed '.zit/file/' or
'.zit/file.git/' solution)
I am not opposed to the wish to track a single file (but I have to say I
am not personally in need for such a feature), but I have to wonder from
the technical point of view if one-repo-per-file is the right approach.
I just had what's probably a silly thought.
how close is a zit setup to a subproject setup?
David Lang
--
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
