Your repositories should be structured independently instead, and should have multiple repositories which represent their dependencies. Either way, there's a lot of wasted energy invested in supporting configurations which were simply never meant to be. That, or many intermediate points of incompatibilities for many projects. unrealistic, huge commits sourced from many teams). The monolithic repository approach reduces commits to "Everything is stable in this configuration!!!" (i.e. The short answer is that your teams and projects have varying needs and varying dependencies. Likely decades of work went into the codebase. You're dealing with multiple teams and multiple projects.
#Smartgit vs sourcetree windows#
more difficult on Windows because of Cygwin and NTFS native symlinks requirements.
![smartgit vs sourcetree smartgit vs sourcetree](http://www.nickbakx.nl/img/portfolio/herringgull.jpg)
#Smartgit vs sourcetree android#
Successfully installed the repo tool used by Android Open Source Project in order to handle all these Git repos:.skipped other unrelevant files ( *.jar, *.pcb, *.dll, *.so, *.backup.moved large files not used for compilation (config.) to other repos (Git does not like large files).related apps/libs kept together in one repo.
#Smartgit vs sourcetree code#
each stabilized library in one repo (source code almost never changed any longer).The bloat CVS repo split in 100 Git repositories:.The reason the team managers finally have accepted the split: the single Git repo (550 MB) was requiring 13 minutes to be cloned on Windows (one minute on Linux).Eamon Nerbonne has noticed the related question:Ĭhoosing between Single or multiple projects in a git repository?.git annotate may be slower on bloat Git repo.4GB limit Git repo size but this is wrong.branches/tags impact the whole Git repository files => pollutes other team projects.What are the arguments to use multiple Git repositories instead of a single one containing different applications and libraries from different teams?
![smartgit vs sourcetree smartgit vs sourcetree](https://1v5ymx3zt3y73fq5gy23rtnc-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/GitKraken-vs-Tower_Hero-1600x900-1-1024x576.png)
I am a newbie in this field so I ask here my question. I do not know really why (they give me some ideas).
![smartgit vs sourcetree smartgit vs sourcetree](https://www.saashub.com/images/app/context_images/4/9c804f8f40b1/github-desktop-alternatives-medium.png)
When I speak with mates working on Git repo for years, they say that using multiple Git repo is the way to use Git. To convince them to migrate from one CVS repo to different Git repositories I need to give them some arguments. But the decision-makers are used to CVS, therefore their point of view is influenced by CVS philosophy. It seemed obvious to split this multiple-projects repository into several Git ones. To make it short, I think that SmartGit and SourceTree have made different visualisation choices, and they shine in different situations.I am migrating a 10-years-old big CVS repository to Git. But I think the aim is to make targeted navigation easier, which I need more often than a "general picture" examination. On big graphs with a lot of branches selected for viewing, this can be confusing compared to SourceTree's neater graph. By contrast, SourceTree has only two modes: either all branches, of the current branch (so to visualize one branch history you have to make it current, which is often not necessary).Īlso, one of SmartGit's choice that makes sense to me is to limit the overall width of history lines to the left, and use navigation arrows that you can click on to follow a specific history line. In this mode, SmartGit visualisation shines over SourceTree (to my taste, of course this is very subjective) - together with the ability to check only what branches you're interested in the branches panel. My personal preference in SmartGit is to check the "first-parent" option, which renders a linear history, with all merge commits showing a little "+" icon that you can dynamically expand to explore the history that you choose. I think SmartGit visualisation is not optimized to show the whole "all branches" history, as SourceTree is.