Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> Dave Page wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>>> <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Well, it sounds about perfect for my use case too (which is
>>>> approximately the same as Tom's), but the description makes it sound
>>>> unsupported. It doesn't work on Windows which doesn't bother me
>>>> personally but may be a showstopper more generally.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It's not a showstopper for me. Can't speak for Magnus, Andrew or
>>> anyone else working on Windows though. I imagine those two are the
>>> most likely to have issues if they're back-patching - and that should
>>> just be a matter of disk space.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Yeah, AFAIK Magnus doesn't commit direct from Windows, and neither do I,
>> and this should not be a showstopper for anyone who isn't a committer.
>>
>
> Well, partially correct.
>
> My workflow today is that I do the commit on a git repository in my
> Windows VM. Which I then "git push" out to my linux box. Where I do a
> make to be sure I didn't break things :-), and then just extract the
> patch with "git diff" and apply it manually to the cvs tree, and finally
> I commit in cvs...
>
> Even if we move to git, I have no desire to push directly from Windows
> into the core repository. I'll still stage it through a local one.
>
I see. In that case, though, you probably do need to be able to do thing
atomically across branches, so that you can push a single changeset, no?
Anyway, it sounds like it's not going to be a showstopper.
cheers
andrew
