From: Jan Wielemaker <wielemak@science.uva.nl>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:55:41 GMT
Subject: Re: Cloning empty repositories, was Re: What is the idea for bare repositories?
Message-ID: <200711121955.42154.wielemak@science.uva.nl>
In-Reply-To: <vpq7iknqrtp.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>

On Monday 12 November 2007 18:47:14 Matthieu Moy wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> > I don't see what is soooo hard with using git-remote in the repo you are
> > pushing from.  It's just a "git remote add origin <url>", and you can
> > even use this to push right afterwards: "git push --all origin".
>
> If "git remote add" is so easy, why does "git clone" set up the remote
> for you?
>
> And don't tell me that you didn't notice that "git clone" does more
> than your proposed "git remote add origin ...".
>
> > Besides, if you really want to work together, chances are that you do
> > _not_ want to start with <n> independent initial commits.
>
> So, what?
>
> > So you need to populate the repository before starting _anyway_.
>
> Last time I checked, the thread was talking about bare repository.
> Perhaps you have a magic formula to populate a bare repository without
> pushing to it from another repo, but I don't.

Hey guys, don't fight about the details.  Just stick to

	* Creating a bare empty repositiory is possible and a perfectly
	valid way to create a shared repositiory.
	* Clone and push is the natural way to modify it.  At least to
	me this was the obvious thing to do.  Explicitely playing with
	remotes is -as far as i'm concerned- lesson 2.
	* If this cannot be done (but, what is wrong with an empty tree?)
	at least
		- git clone should *not* say it created a repository
		- The documentation should have a note on that

	Cheers --- Jan