Subject: Re: moved

Re: moved

From: Tor Arntsen <>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:07:39 +0200

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 13:47, Daniel Stenberg<> wrote:

> I'd like to commit the entire existing web site to git to allow everyone to
> contribute to it easier. Any suggestion from a git experienced person on a
> particular approach for doing this? Would a separate repo for it make sense?

I would say "yes" to the separate repo idea. In my experience at
least, it makes more sense to split things into smaller units with GIT
than it does with CVS, one of the reasons is that there's the single,
global commit track (as seen with 'git log' and 'git show' etc.).

If the pieces in the repo are not directly parts of each other it
makes it a little messy, because you're always forced to use a dir or
a path together with e.g. 'git show' to see the last relevant checkin.
If it's split into e.g. a git repo for code, and a git repo for web,
for example, you simply cd into one of them and a simple 'git log'
will give you only relevant log entries for pieces of the same logical

The way I work with GIT is that I create directories where I keep a
number of small git repos which are somehow related, but separate.
e.g. docu one place, code another place. One of my own projects is
emulators for an old system. I have a dir with one .git for docu&info,
another .git for the 16-bit emulator and a third .git for the 32-bit
emulator. With CVS I would have put all of them in different
directories in a single CVS repo, but not with GIT. Having them
separated also makes it more convenient for when I want to clone a
piece to another computer.

In fact, when I use GIT together with CVS (as in putting git repos
inside CVS-checked-out data - this can be very useful for off-line
work), I always create separate git repos in the different module
directories, there's not a one-to-one mapping at all. Sometimes I can
have .git repos for different directories in the sub-module too. This
works very nicely.

Received on 2009-07-31