Re: worktrees vs. alternates

["Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1396 bytes --]

On Wed, 16 May 2018, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

>
> On Wed, May 16 2018, Lars Schneider wrote:
>
> > I am looking into different options to cache Git repositories on build
> > machines. The two most promising ways seem to be git-worktree [1] and
> > git-alternates [2].
> >
> > I wonder if you see an advantage of one over the other?
> >
> > My impression is that git-worktree supersedes git-alternates. Would
> > that be a fair statement? If yes, would it makes sense to deprecate
> > alternates for simplification?
> >
> > [1] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-worktree
> > [2] https://git-scm.com/docs/gitrepository-layout#gitrepository-layout-objectsinfoalternates
>
> It's not correct that worktrees supersede alternates, or the other
> way around, they're orthagonal features.
>
> git-worktree allows you to create a new working directory connected
> to the same local object store.
>
> Alternates allow you to declare in any given local object store,
> that your set of objects isn't complete, and you can find the rest
> at some other location, those object stores may or may not have more
> than one worktree connected to them.

  just to be clear here, there should be nothing about how alternates
are set up for a repository that should affect the normal behaviour of
working trees for that repository, correct? i never thought there was,
i just thought i'd make absolutely sure.

rday