Re: Git transition checklist

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Andreas Schwab writes:
 > "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:
 > 
 > > In the case of "git clone --shared" vs "git new-workdir", however,
 > > "git new-workdir" does something equivalent to "git clone --shared",
 > > and then does some other stuff too.  I don't really see any reason not
 > > to do "clone --shared".
 > 
 > clone --shared should only be used if know what you do, especially avoid
 > it if the origin is continued to be used for development.

True, it's best used as a staging area.  However, the most dangerous
operations (rebasing and deleting branches in the origin repo (what I
called "trunk")) are unlikely to be done by bzr fans.

 > It works best if the origin is just a mirror of the upstream repo,
 > and never modified except by pulling from upstream.  A clone
 > without --shared gives almost the same space saving without the
 > caveats.

That depends on how actively the developer uses separate workspaces.
I guess for Emacs with about 100,000 commits and 275,000 objects,
you'd have to be pretty frenetic to make a noticable difference.

On balance, I guess it is better to avoid the --shared option.

Except: what about Windows filesystems?  I have no idea if they
implement hardlinks properly (I gather the semantics of symlinks are
somewhat different).

 > Copying commits between clones is straight forward with git fetch.

True but I doubt Glenn and Eli are worried about that.