|| ||Jeff Garzik <jgarzik-AT-pobox.com>|
|| ||Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-osdl.org>|
|| ||Re: [git patches] 2.6.x net driver updates|
|| ||Tue, 24 May 2005 03:29:37 -0400|
|| ||Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-osdl.org>, Netdev <netdev-AT-oss.sgi.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>|
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>You are getting precisely the same thing you got under BitKeeper: pull
>>from X, you get my tree, which was composed from $N repositories. The
>>tree you pull was created by my running 'bk pull' locally $N times.
> No. Under BK, you had DIFFERENT TREES.
> What does that mean? They had DIFFERENT NAMES.
> Which meant that the commit message was MEANINGFUL.
Ok, I'll fix the commit message.
As for different trees, I'm afraid you've written something that is _too
useful_ to be used in that manner.
Git has brought with it a _major_ increase in my productivity because I
can now easily share ~50 branches with 50 different kernel hackers,
without spending all day running rsync. Suddenly my kernel development
is a whole lot more _open_ to the world, with a single "./push". And
That wasn't possible before with BitKeeper, just due to sheer network
overhead of 50 trees. With BitKeeper, the _only_ thing that kernel
hackers and users could get from me is a mush tree with everything
merged into a big 'ALL' repository.
So I'll continue to be the oddball, because more people can work in
parallel with me that way. I'll just have to make sure the commit
messages look right to you.
to post comments)