From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Rewriting bzrmerge.el Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 19:49:03 +0200 Message-ID: <83sih9renk.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20141027000718.F09B5382A66@snark.thyrsus.com> <87bno8y0rt.fsf_-_@engster.org> <871tp4xx4i.fsf@engster.org> <87tx20whtq.fsf@engster.org> <87lhn4rx0v.fsf@engster.org> <838uj3tztm.fsf@gnu.org> <87egsvrz6e.fsf@engster.org> <83mw7jrxt9.fsf@gnu.org> <87a93jrw83.fsf@engster.org> <83ioi7rn9o.fsf@gnu.org> <87oarysr3u.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87siha5oru.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83bnnxsxve.fsf@gnu.org> <873899swwd.fsf@Gertrud.fritz.box> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1416764956 10591 80.91.229.3 (23 Nov 2014 17:49:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 17:49:16 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Achim Gratz Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 23 18:49:10 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XsbHa-00048x-4f for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2014 18:49:10 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49521 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XsbHZ-0006yM-FY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2014 12:49:09 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51009) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XsbHS-0006ws-0l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2014 12:49:07 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XsbHM-0005AF-UD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2014 12:49:01 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout28.012.net.il ([80.179.55.184]:59323) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XsbHM-0005A9-Ly for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2014 12:48:56 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout28.012.net.il by mtaout28.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NFI00H0069MFT00@mtaout28.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2014 19:46:23 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by mtaout28.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NFI00B3Q6PB9O70@mtaout28.012.net.il>; Sun, 23 Nov 2014 19:46:23 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <873899swwd.fsf@Gertrud.fritz.box> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 80.179.55.184 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:178104 Archived-At: > From: Achim Gratz > Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 17:29:38 +0100 > > Again, the easiest way to clone the repo twice is to do exactly that and > have the second clone use the first as a reference repository. A more > symmetric setup is to do the first clone into a bare repository and then > clone both working repos with reference to the first one: > > git clone --bare git://git.sv.gnu.org/emacs.git > git clone --reference emacs.git --branch master master > git clone --reference emacs.git --branch emacs-24 emacs-24 > > If you remember to always do a "git remote update" first for the bare > repository before pulling in the work trees, you'll never copy any > object from the official repo more than once. This also scales nicely > to even more repositories as long as you really keep a strict "one repo > per branch" workflow. Thanks, but how is this better than just 2 full clones of the upstream repo on Savannah? What you suggest is certainly more complicated, albeit slightly so. What do we gain except disk savings? Scalability is not really an issue, as it's hard for me to imagine that Emacs will have more than 2 divergent branches any time soon.