News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Metahead – An enterprise-grade, Git-based metarepo. Parent comment

Re:Metahead – An enterprise-grade, Git-based metarepo by layer8 on Wednesday January 10, 2024 @07:06PM (#38945466)
“Meta” would normally mean that a metarepo relates to a repo like a repo relates to a file. That would imply an orthogonal versioning axis, similar to a bitemporal database.

I find the term confusing here because that’s not really what it is (if my understanding is correct).

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Metahead – An enterprise-grade, Git-based metarepo by vlad_ivanov on Wednesday January 10, 2024 @07:09PM (#38945489)
It does, in fact, relate to a repo like a repo relates to a file! Because every projection only contains related history and subtrees – much like if you were looking at a history of a file in a git repository
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Metahead – An enterprise-grade, Git-based metarepo by layer8 on Wednesday January 10, 2024 @07:17PM (#38945560)
So I can “commit” a repo containing some history as the new version of a previous repo containing a different history?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Metahead – An enterprise-grade, Git-based metarepo by vlad_ivanov on Wednesday January 10, 2024 @07:23PM (#38945609)
You can, if histories are related. They usually are - you add commits on top. Your history will be reverse-transformed in such a way so that its impact on the whole metarepo can be assessed. So if you modified a file in a library that ten other applications depend on, those applications would get this modification applied and would trigger a CI run to verify your change.
[ Parent | on HN ]