On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
>> 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.
>
> Seems like we'd want all committers to be using a similar work-flow
> for back-patching, else we're going to have random variations in what
> patch sets look like in the history.
>
> I think the appropriate question is why doesn't it work on Windows,
> and is that fixable? Without having looked, I'm guessing the issue
> is that it depends on hardlinks or symlinks --- and we know those are
> available, as long as you're using recent Windows with NTFS. Which
> does not sound like an unreasonable baseline requirement for someone
> committing from Windows.
It's a simple perl script that uses symlinks:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git;a=blob;f=contrib/workdir/git-new-workdir
But... it doesn't really break the workflow as far as I can see - it
will just mean Windows users need multiple full copies of the repo for
each branch until the script could be hacked up.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
