On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 20:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 06/03/2009 01:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> But rebuilding the Linux kernel is hardly a zero-cost operation,
> >> so how have Linus and co failed to notice this problem? There
> >> must be some trick they're using that I haven't heard about, or
> >> they'd not be nearly so pleased with git.
>
> > Building out of tree and ccache are frequently mentioned.
>
> Yeah, I thought about building out of tree, with a different build tree
> for each branch and VPATH pointing at the common source tree (working
> copy). That would probably work if it weren't that switching to branch
> B and then back to branch A has to advance the filesystem timestamps on
> every file that's different between the two branches. So it would
> defeat whatever intelligence "make" might have. Even if ccache is not
> fooled, that's only a very partial solution.
So I bounced on #git and got this:
(05:22:52 PM) mugwump: linuxpoet: great. So, anyway, for that particular
problem you have two possible solutions: git-new-workdir (crack it open,
it's very simple!), or using multiple clones with hooks that copy
revisions between each other when they are committed
The "particular" problem he is referring to is:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-06/msg00221.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-06/msg00221.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-06/msg00202.php
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> regards, tom lane
>
--
PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake@jabber.postgresql.org Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 -
http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997
