git on FAT32

aardwolf · 2012-02-08 11:59:41

Hello,

Do you think that using git, with Linux, but on a FAT32 disk, would work?

Or does git depend on case sensitivity or other differences between FAT32 and Linux filesystems like ext3?

Thanks!

.:B:. · 2012-02-08 12:51:54

Why don't you test it?

aardwolf · 2012-02-08 14:42:26

.:B:. wrote:

Why don't you test it?

I'm going to set up a new PC, which hasn't arrived yet. Before installing ArchLinux I'm going to format the harddisk into several partitions. Now I need to decide what file system to use on each partition.

Typically, I use an ext3 (or this time probably ext4) partition for installing Linux, but make another FAT32 partition which I use for all kinds of data like projects, photos, ... FAT32 because that's what's the most universally accessible.

Now that I start over with a clean new PC with fresh empty disks, I want to use git on it for making easy backups and versioning of code or other things I work on (just using git locally, possibly set up so that if I commit it goes to another hard disk).

The FAT32 thing is something instinctively rooted in me all due some trauma that happened over 10 years ago involving a DOS boot floppy disk not being able to read my files. But maybe I should start to think about dropping this whole FAT32 thing. Git not supporting it would be a good reason for that.

sakisds · 2012-02-08 15:21:16

While FAT32 is universally accessible, do you actually need anything else other than linux to read that partition? If not, then why use it, all live CDs can read ext3/4 in case you need it. I don't think it's a good idea to use FAT32.

Yannick_LM · 2012-02-08 20:40:12

Few things I learned from using git on ntfs while sharing code with people on unix.
(I guess it should be more or less the same on fat32, although I never tried git on fat32)

1. msysgit rocks, use that.

If you are not sharing with anyone, you are mostly fine, and you can skip the following.

Edit: hum, it seem you ARE using git on your own... Well leaving the rest in case someone else
is interested

2. use core.autocrlf=True (your worktree will use DOS end of lines, but you'll push UNIX end of lines)

3. If you commit a symlink from a unix box, you will be an empty file with the same name when cloning the repo
(fyi, svn does it completly different)

4. If you someone does a commit like "rename makefile to Makefile" from an unix you will have some troubles when you pull
from your windows box, because git knows the filename has changed, but the OS is not able to actually rename the file.
(Your best solution is to remove the file and checkout it again)

Well, that's all I got to say.

We are using git for 2 years on a cross-platform environment (linux, mac, windows) without major problems.

Last edited by Yannick_LM (2012-02-08 20:45:20)

fukawi2 · 2012-02-08 22:32:49

aardwolf wrote:

Typically, I use an ext3 (or this time probably ext4) partition for installing Linux, but make another FAT32 partition which I use for all kinds of data like projects, photos, ... FAT32 because that's what's the most universally accessible.
....
But maybe I should start to think about dropping this whole FAT32 thing.

You really should.... Using FAT32 for all your data is bad juju. If your data were eggs, using FAT32 would be like storing your eggs in a blender.

I understand the accessibility issue on external hard drives (ie, USB/Firewire etc) but on an internal disk/partition where you aren't dual booting, it's insanity IMHO. Sharing the disk over the network (NFS, CIFS etc) doesn't care about the underlying filesystem.

Arch Linux

#1 2012-02-08 11:59:41

git on FAT32

#2 2012-02-08 12:51:54

Re: git on FAT32

#3 2012-02-08 14:42:26

Re: git on FAT32

#4 2012-02-08 15:21:16

Re: git on FAT32

#5 2012-02-08 20:40:12

Re: git on FAT32

#6 2012-02-08 22:32:49

Re: git on FAT32

Board footer