Hi, On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > Since git is better than all of these, we should be able to easily write a > SVN-like porcelain, so ... ;-) Sorry, you're correct. > > IMHO, if you need a central repository, you should also have > > one central HEAD. > > I disagree. Larger projects have multiple HEADs (stable, oldstable, > development, ...). I don't like putting those in different repositories, > you end up with a heap of housekeeping effort to hardlink duplicate > objects, all of which is going to be wasted when different people run > "git repack". Sorry again. I should have been clearer: If you have a larger project which does have production releases which have to be patched for a while, and thus need several branches, then there is still a *very good* reason not to play games with the names of those branches or the tags. Naming the remote HEAD differently than the local HEAD is just *wrong* when you want to push back to them. I agree that it is a fine intellectual challenge to keep juggling a few remote HEADs, and throw in a few local HEADs, but all that is *complicated*. And complicated things lead to complications. BTW I am a Jeff, I use git branches extensively in two projects. The only sane way if you have to have different local and remote HEADs that I can think of, would be to allow only the current local active HEAD to be pushed to a certain remote HEAD (preferably identified by a file in .git/branches). Ciao, Dscho - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
