Re: The essential problems of moving from CVS

[Thomas Adam <thomas.adam22%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 01:17:47AM +0900, Curt Sampson wrote:
> However I note that it appears to apply to working copies only: not to
> the object store. Thus, even if your working copy is only a small part
> of the whole working copy, it appears as if you'd still end up with
> an object store containing the entire repo, unless you used alternate
> methods to deal with that. Does this seem incorrect to you?

Seems that way.  I've played around with it.  I can see it being useful,
perhaps it will evolve into something more; all indications are that it was
always supposed to be how other systems have subtree support.

> Well this falls straight into the "going to have to sell a compromise"
> area to my mind. And anyway, I'm not even clear as to what the point (or
> points) are of partial checkouts, as I'm only imagining use cases rather
> than knowing about real ones. Those use cases for subtree checkouts are
> probably the something we should get on to the wiki....

Sure -- the point I was making is whether or not we need subtree support as
an integral part of the workflow, or if it is instead decided that using
submodules and/or separate git repositories is the way forward, is something
to bear in mind -- as these features are nothing more than a means to an
end of achieving something in a given way.

-- Thomas Adam

-- 
"It was the cruelest game I've ever played and it's played inside my head."
-- "Hush The Warmth", Gorky's Zygotic Mynci.