Re: Multiple checkout copies

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.net> writes:

>>>>>> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>
>  > "I'm typically interested in" is no base for promoting problematic
>  > workflows since it violates the "do not use it unless you understand
>  > what it does" dictum for the recipient of such a recipe.
>
> 	The whole idea behind this discussion is to clarify when
> 	--shared is reasonable, — and when it isn’t.  Isn’t it?

And the manual page clearly states that it requires to know what you are
doing.  That makes it feasible for use in a script, and unfeasible for
use in a recipe: the latter _can_ and will be varied, violating the "do
not use it unless you understand what it does" prerequisite given in its
manual page.

And all of the handwaving and qualifications _after_ having the problems
pointed out make _very_ obvious that the required information for using
it safely is not likely to be communicated in informal discussions.

In addition, we've had --shared confused with --local (which is implied
anyway).  So the takeaway is not to use any options in connection with
creating local clones manually.  That steers around all of the not
reliably reproducible problems, at a mostly moderate cost in disk usage.

"Handling a foot gun is not hard and can be fun" is a frequent software
engineering pain vector.

-- 
David Kastrup