Re: State of the repository conversion

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Steinar Bang <address@hidden>
> Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 22:00:03 +0100
> 
> >>>>> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>:
> 
> > IOW, we need specific suggestions of workflows and procedures, rather
> > than general references to possible ways of going about this.
> 
> Ok, here's how to make a local, er... remote

Thanks.  However, I cannot easily map this arrangement to what I had
in mind, namely, having a separate trunk and release branches, each
one having its working tree in a different directory.  What am I
missing?

As for feature branches, I think relatively short-lived ones will be
better off in the same directory as the trunk, because they aren't
expected to diverge too much, so having them co-located actually makes
a lot of sense and saves time.  (Since each build produces also a
numbered emacs-XX.YY.nn executable, it is at least in theory possible
to have several executables available at once.)  By contrast, feature
branches that make deep changes and this diverge a lot from the trunk
are better kept in separate directories, like the release branch.

> Downsides to a git repository backing multiple working directories, are:
>  - 3 copies of the git repository on disk, rather than just one

Doesn't --separate-git-dir solve that problem?