Naive questions re hard-linking repositories

[Andrew Cowie]

On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 17:26 +1000, Ian Clatworthy wrote:

> Right. Defaults matter because they say a lot about how a tool is
> expected to be used in the common case. I rarely prefer git's UI over
> ours but, going back to the root problem, I think their choice of
> two separate commands - clone vs branch - is a wise one. The reality
> is that Doing The Right Thing varies IMO w.r.t. "branching" from a
> remote location vs branching from a local one. For remote, you nearly
> always mean "get me my own copy of history" while local
> branching is all about "start me a new line of development". The
> yet-another-complete-copy-of-history in the local case *by default* is
> somewhere between worthless and harmful (cause it consumes unnecessary
> time & resources).

Well said.

AfC
Sydney

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20090416/c8bdbac3/attachment.pgp