My request may look strange but it'd make more sense after I explain why I'm doing it.
So I have my person projects under /path/to/myprojects. Underneath maybe C, Perl, Shell, Tcl, etc. Now I want to put those project groups (C, Perl, etc) under git, but in different location, e.g., /path/to/mygits/.
The reason that I want to do this is that, traditionally I backup my /path/to/myprojects to other locations by rar them first. Since they are all text based, rar them up will yield excellent compression ratio. Now I want to keep the same practice, even I've introduced git. Thus I need to keep the binary git repository out of the way of my text base folder into a separate binary base folder.
All my findings on stackoverflow indicate impossible, or I "have to use submodules which can be quite painful":
Git: Different Working Directory and Repository location,
git repository with folders in different locations,
Add Separate Directories/Projects/Files to Git Repository
However, there is one answer that says it is possible to decouple the git working directory and git repository directory:
how do I change the location of a Git repository
but it says something about git reset --hard which I want to know the details.
Also Using GIT_DIR seems to be another solution.
Anybody can help?
Thanks
Alright, enough waiting, let me answer my own question.
As DCoder has pointed out, the answer is at Can I store the .git folder outside the files I want tracked?.
I.e., there are many git based solutions listed there, all needs some extra
git configuration. You might have to do them if under Windows. However, under Linux, symlinking the .git directory to somewhere else is the easiest and cleanest solution.
Related
I have been using git for some time now and I feel I have a good handle on it.
I did however, build my first small program as a distribution (something with ./configure make and make install) and I want to put it up on github but I am not sure how to exactly go about tracking it.
Should I, for instance, initialize git but only track the source code file, manpage, and readme (since the other files generated by autoconf and automake seem a bit superfluous)
Or should I make an entirely different directory and put the source files in there and then manually rebuild everything for version 0.2 when it is time?
Or do something else entirely?
I have tried searching but I cannot come up with any search terms that give me the kind of results I am looking for.
for instance initialize git but only track the source code file, manpage, and readme (since the other files generated by autoconf and automake seem a bit superfluous)
Yes: anything used to build needs to be tracked.
Anything being the result of the build does not need to be tracked.
should I make an entirely different directory
No: in version control, you could make a new tag to mark each version, and release branches from those tags to isolate patches which could be specific to the implementation details of a fixed release.
But you don't create folders (that was the subversion way)
should I make an entirely different directory for sources
Yes, you can (if you have a large set of files for sources)
But see also "Makefiles with source files in different directories"; you don't have just one Makefile.
The traditional way is to have a Makefile in each of the subdirectories (part1, part2, etc.) allowing you to build them independently.
Further, have a Makefile in the root directory of the project which builds everything.
And don't forget to put your object files in a separate folder (not tracked) as well.
See also this question as a concrete example.
I would like to install Gitlab (omnibus, from a deb ), where the executables and /etc files go in their standard location, but the rest go in a tree based at /srv/gitlab.
It's not clear to me how to accomplish this modifying the configuration files,since there seem to be so many directories there. Can someone help?
Edit
There is this question:
Data Dir relocation but it only answers part of the question git_data_dir changes the location of git repositories. Since I am ( obviously ) still installing GitLab I can't say what are the exact features, but clearly there is a wiki and issue trackiong and git_data_dir does not cover those, AFAIK. I'm looking for something that moves as much as is possible.
At some point during my adventures with Linux, I decided that it would be a good idea to put everything in my home directory into source control. I'm not asking whether that was a good idea or not -- I'm asking how to undo it.
The reason for removing the repository is that I recently installed Oh My Zsh, and I really like it. The rub is that my home directory has a big git:(master) stuck behind it, and I'm just not a huge fan of that.
So what I would like to do is remove the git repository itself, so that the git:(master) is no longer displayed, without deleting all of my files.
Just remove (or rename) the .git subdirectory. That subdirectory is the whole of the repository. This will not delete your files, but it will delete their history.
Additionally, there might be files like .gitignore and .gitattributes that are not necessary anymore.
Make sure that all your files are present in the working tree before removing/renaming .git.
Your repository resides in the .git directory, you can delete it easily. But if only the prompt disturbs you, it is enough to search where PROMPT gets new value in your environment and modify it to something else.
Removing the directory .git in a repository removes the history, and keeps the files currently checked out - it does not keep all files.
Warning: this may not be what you need!
The history contains earlier states of files, files that were removed at some time, and other branches, containing similar, up to date files similar to the currently checked out, or completely different ones.
That means, in the general case, removing the .git affects files that where in the repository tree earlier, and files that currently - in the newest version - exist in other branches. All these would be deleted too!
The answers proposing to just delete .git apply only in the simplest case,
where you only added files to the master branch since creating the repository, and master is checked out.
So, we probably did something we shouldn't have done, but now I wonder how this should typically be handled.
We have a large project with multiple applications which are grouped in different sub-systems. I was working on one specific application which was found in the following subdirectory:
/svnroot/subSystemName/myApp
Since I didn't need the whole SVN, I just did a checkout of that subdirectory.
Some time later, someone else figured that the name of the sub-system wasn't quite right, so he did a svn rename on the directory, so that my application is now found in:
/svnroot/subSystemNewName/myApp
As you might imagine, this causes problems because when I try to do an update for instance, it says "target path does not exist", as it's still looking for the original path.
What am I to do? Is the only solution to do a full checkout again? How should this have been handled in the first place?
PS: I'm on Linux.
svn switch should do the trick. Run svn switch <url_of_new_location> <local_checkout_dir>
Suppose I have 6 different files on different locations which I want to put under one repo.
E.g. I have files like
~/bashrc
/etc/php.ini
/etc/apache.conf
/etc/virtualhosts.conf
/scripts/mybackup.sh
Now I want to put those in my one repo called My Scripts from one location, so that if I use git status and then if those files are modified then I can see those from one location. Can I use symlinks?
You can use symlinks. It is indeed what dotfiles managers such as homesick do. It is helpful to have a script to generate all the links automatically for you, in case you want to clone your setup to another box.