4 ms·
Neat, and creative, but.. > You can mount a remote repository’s branch locally, and any subsequent changes made to the files will be automatically committed to
by hitpointdrew 5y ago
Neat, and creative, but..
> You can mount a remote repository’s branch locally, and any subsequent changes made to the files will be automatically committed to the remote.
This is not a “feature” I would ever want. That alone activity dissuades me from wanting to try this.
- gedy 5y agoI'm curious what behavior you'd expect from a git file system then? For devs and commits, understood, but for time machine like history of directories, etc seems useful for many folks.
- masklinn 5y ago> I'm curious what behavior you'd expect from a git file system then? Explicit “commits” and pushes, like zfs? Automatic commits are all noise. If it’s a git client for non-technical users then it’s even less acceptable, that’s a guaranteed way to fuck up your repository.
- hitpointdrew 5y ago> I'm curious what behavior you'd expect from a git file system then? I never thought about or considered a “git file system” before today. While a neat thing conceptually and even technically, I can’t imagine a situation where I would want a git file system. I never want to auto commit to the remote repo. I want to make sure my local changes aren’t complete shit before I committing to the remote. For me this is a solution to a problem that I don’t have.
- bastardoperator 5y agoTell us how you feel about network file systems?