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: need help adjusting workflow to git (or vice versa) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 07:26:19 +0200 Message-ID: <83egt6jqtg.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87zjbvt8o3.fsf@rosalinde.fritz.box> <5464DC5F.8070607@gmx.at> <87oasaubfc.fsf@rosalinde.fritz.box> <54651045.6080901@cs.ucla.edu> <87k32yu8yh.fsf@rosalinde.fritz.box> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1415942803 12114 80.91.229.3 (14 Nov 2014 05:26:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 05:26:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eggert@cs.ucla.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stephen Berman Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Nov 14 06:26:36 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 1Xp9P2-0002Qn-FS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 06:26:36 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34958 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xp9P1-0006GO-Vh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 00:26:35 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50423) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xp9Ot-0006G6-Uk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 00:26:33 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xp9Om-00055O-Pg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 00:26:27 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout21.012.net.il ([80.179.55.169]:34046) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xp9Om-00052n-HG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 00:26:20 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NF000600JS2VG00@a-mtaout21.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 07:26:19 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NF0006EYKFUV820@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 07:26:19 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <87k32yu8yh.fsf@rosalinde.fritz.box> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.169 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:177033 Archived-At: > From: Stephen Berman > Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:44:22 +0100 > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:10:45 -0800 Paul Eggert wrote: > > > On 11/13/2014 11:51 AM, Stephen Berman wrote: > >> I would be very surprised if either of these approaches is used by most > >> developers using git, because if so, I'd have expected them to be part > >> of the standard toolkit and well documented. > > > > "git clone" is part of the standard Git toolkit, and is well documented. It's > > what I use for your scenario, if I understand the scenario correctly. And > > "git clone" should be fast enough; for Emacs it takes 1.3 seconds on my > > 3-year-old desktop's hard disk. > > That's what Martin referred to, isn't it? Yes. > It takes considerably longer on my older and feebler hardware, also > compared with `bzr update' and `bzr pull --overwrite' in a shared > repository. Did you "git clone" from your local repo or from the remote savannah address? The former should be very fast. > And the size is also not insignificant, if it means having a copy of > the entire Emacs repository for each build (~540M). I think if you clone locally, git uses hard links for the meta-data (or maybe it's an optional behavior that you need to activate with some switch, see the documentation). > Is that really the standard procedure? If so, I guess I'll get used > to it, but it does surprise me. Every VCS has its downsides. Bzr had only separate branches (co-located branches were initially implemented in the last version); git has only co-located branches. You need to work around that.