Re: [ptp-user] A commENT and a question about Synchronized Projects in I

[Corey Ashford <cjashfor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ooops!  The subject of this email should have been "A comment and a
question..." not a "A command and question..."!

- Corey

On 05/17/2011 03:57 PM, Corey Ashford wrote:
> 
> Hi Folks,
> 
> I am evaluating the different remote project capabilities in PTP, and
> I'm currently looking at the "Synchronized Project" type.
> 
> I've played around with it a bit, and so far it looks pretty cool!  I
> like how transparent it is in using Git (the only synchronization option
> available, it appears) to synchronize the source and target directories.
> 
> There is no online help that I could find, so I had to take some guesses
> as to how to set it up, but after doing that, it sort of "just worked"
> and seems to be very fast and transparent.  I even threw an existing Git
> project at it, and it worked without a hitch.
> 
> One concern I have about the way it uses Git: it seems to play fast and
> loose with making commits, especially to existing Git trees.  My
> intuition is that some people will find it objectionable.  If I was
> working on a source tree that was maintained using Git, I think I would
> be annoyed too, that I would have to collapse perhaps tens of commits
> into one real one.
> 
> I had set up something similar, that synchronizes the host and target
> source using a shared git tree.  The synchronization step was postponed
> till a build was attempted, and instead of making an actual commit, a
> list of of modified+staged files is created and then rsync'd to the
> target.  At some point you want to commit your changes in a series of
> one or more patches, and when you do that, you do a "git reset --hard"
> on the target side, and then pull after the commit(s) are pushed from
> the local side.  This followed a "master repo" set-up, but I think you
> could adapt it for a peer-to-peer setup.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that you switch to a similar system, but eliminating
> the large number of commits that are done to the tree would be a desired
> feature.
> 
> -----
> 
> My question: Is there any capability to deal with remotely-located
> include files (for example /usr/include/string.h) ?  I couldn't find any
> way to add remotely-located paths.
> 
> Thanks for your consideration,
> 
> - Corey
> _______________________________________________
> ptp-user mailing list
> ptp-user@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ptp-user