Re: need help adjusting workflow to git (or vice versa)

[Stephen Berman]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 07:26:19 +0200 Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:

>> From: Stephen Berman <address@hidden>
>> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:44:22 +0100
>> Cc: address@hidden
>> 
>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:10:45 -0800 Paul Eggert <address@hidden> 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.

I actually didn't realize there was a difference, I assumed cloning
grabs the remote source, which in my case takes much longer than 1.3 seconds.

>> 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.

Yes, there's lots to learn and get used to.

Steve Berman