Re: Git drawbacks?

[Dmitry Smirnov <divis1969@gmail.com>]

Avery Pennarun <apenwarr <at> gmail.com> writes:

> There are three methods I know of to manage this:
> 
> 1) Just commit whatever version of a subproject you want as a subtree
> of your current project, and if you want to replace/delete/upgrade it,
> just do that.  (You rarely want to track the actual *history* of the
> third party tool, just the history of versions *you* used, which is
> easy to do.)

Ok. Does that mean that new component2 and common component1 should leave on the 
new branch (having in mind that old component2 and component1 are still living 
on previous branch)? So, how many efforts will I need to get both component1 
versions in sync (it is supposed that most of the changes in this component are 
common for both)? Is is supposed that having 2 branches for this component is 
cheaper (from development cycle POW)?

> 2) Use git-submodule to link repositories together.  (Arguably, one
> major reason 'repo' was written is that git-submodule is too
> complicated, though.)

> 3) Try my git-subtree tool, which basically makes it easier to
> split/join repositories (similar to #1) without losing the history
> (similar to #2).

I'll try to learn it.

I suppose, both these tools (repo and git-subtree) are the indication of some 
contradiction between  the tool and SCM practice (especially, for big projects).

> 
> Basically, performance is linear with the number of files in your
> repo.  If you can check out just a "slice" of your repo (say 10% of
> the whole), you'll have faster performance (eg. 10x) from any VCS.

Yes, I just wish to see this feature in some VCS. Why not Git? ;-)

> So I can see an argument that Windows users would want arbitrary
> "slices" much more often than Linux+git users, but I think this is
> largely due to performance, not because people really *want* to be
> stuck with a restricted view of the repo.

How offten do you use this info? I mean the whole stuff?