Re: git bug? + question
- From
- Josef Weidendorfer <josef.weidendorfer@gmx.de>
- Date
- Nov 6, 2006, 11:00 UTC
- Message-ID
- <200611061200.08972.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de>
- In-Reply-To
- <454F0636.1060406@shadowen.org>
On Monday 06 November 2006 10:53, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
Show 14 quoted lines
> Josef Weidendorfer wrote: > > On Saturday 04 November 2006 06:03, Shawn Pearce wrote: > >> After reading your reply you are probably correct. I can see there > >> may be workflows that want every remote branch also created as a > >> local branch. > >> > >> I could certainly live with a command line option to clone, e.g.: > >> > >> git clone --only vmdvt,vmtip user@host:/path... > > > > Still missing here: What branch should be checked out after > > cloning? > > Does any need to be checked out?
We should not change existing behavior. IMHO, checking out a branch is mostly the right thing to do. Of course, you often want to specify which one. The current requirement for a master branch in the origin repository is really bad, as it obviously requires ugly workarounds in some cases (and totally confuse newbies in such use cases).
> Or perhap I should put it another way, > when we make a virgin repository we default to master checked out but > its not joined to the DAG.
I do not understand this. By creating a local branch, the commit DAG is never changed.