push content of a symbolic link to remote server.

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

Uwe Brauer <oub at mat.ucm.es> writes:

>    > Uwe Brauer <oub at mat.ucm.es> writes:
>
>
>    > Please do take the advice and use a thin shell repo. Anything else
>    > brings not-to-be-underestimated amounts of pain on the long run (I have
>    > some normal repos with subrepos, and I would not do that again; the thin
>    > shell prevents tight coupling of the history which would bite you at
>    > some point, and be it when you try to upload your stuff to infocalypse
>    > repositories for anonymous access and realize that an update will
>    > trigger a request to the clearnet).
>
> Well right now I still have difficulties grasps his logic.
> I have
>
> repo1/textfile
> repo2/textfile
> repo3/textfile
> repo4/libraryfile
>
> Now the library file is needed by repo1, repo2, and repo3.
>
> So I thought push all of them to bitbucket and set
> in repo1  .hgsub
> repo4 = ../repo4
> and clone repo4 insider repo1.
>
> This is not the thin-shell approach, but I don't see which files I
> should add in the main directory. But as I said I don't gasp still the
> thin shell approach.

It would be (with name->path as symbolic link)

shell/repo1/lib->../repo3/lib
      repo2/lib->../repo3/lib
      repo3/lib

If you ever break the shell, you can just create a new one with repo3 as
the lib subrepo.

In the shell you decide which version of lib the symlinks actually point
to (this provides reproducability). repo1 and repo2 just expect there to
be a repo3 next to them but do not know about its version.

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial/attachments/20170327/f95f22c6/attachment.asc>