Re: worktrees vs. alternates

[Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>]

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 5:31 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 06:13:55AM +0530, Sitaram Chamarty wrote:
>
>> I may have missed a few of the earlier messages, but in the last
>> 20 or so in this thread, I did not see namespaces mentioned by
>> anyone. (I.e., apologies if it was addressed and discarded
>> earlier!)
>>
>> I was under the impression that, as long as "read" access need
>> not be controlled (Konstantin's situation, at least, and maybe
>> Peff's too, for public repos), namespaces are a good way to
>> create and manage that "mother repo".
>>
>> Is that not true anymore?  Mind, I have not actually used them
>> in anger anywhere, so I could be missing some really big point
>> here.
>
> The biggest problem with namespaces as they are currently implemented is
> that they do not apply universally to all commands. If you only access
> the repo via push/fetch, they may be fine. But as soon as you start
> doing other operations (e.g., showing the history of a branch in a web
> interface), you don't get to use the namespaced names anymore.
>
> I think a different implementation of namespaces could do this better.
> E.g., by controlling the view of the refs at the refs.c layer (or
> perhaps as a filtering backend).

Yeah. Namespaces (that work for all commands) + worktree was my plan
for centralizing repos (for one user). But I never got that far to
look into making ref namespaces work for everything.
-- 
Duy