> It's mainly a clue to bad practice, in my opinion. I personally like the > "one repository, one head" approach, and if you want multiple heads you > just do multiple repositories (and you can then mix just the object > database - set your SHA1_FILE_DIRECTORY environment variable to point to > the shared object database, and you're good to go).
Maybe I just have a terminology problem? I want to have one "shared objects database" which I keep locally and mirror publicly at kernel.org/pub/scm/... I will have several "repositories" locally for various grades of patches, each of which use SHA1_FILE_DIRECTORY to point to my single repository. So I never have to worry about getting all the git commands to switch context ... I just use "cd ../testing", and "cd ../release". But now I need a way to indicate to consumers of the public shared object data base which HEAD to use. Perhaps I should just say "merge 821376bf15e692941f9235f13a14987009fd0b10 from rsync://rsync.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/aegl/linux-2.6.git"? That works for interacting with you, because you only pull from me when I tell you there is something there to pull. But Andrew had a cron job or somthing to keep polling every day. So he needs to see what the HEAD is. Does this make sense ... or am I still missing the point? -Tony - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
