Re: git-relink doesn't work on bare repos

From: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
Date: Mar 4, 2008, 15:19 UTC
Message-ID: <200803040919.19641.jgoerzen@complete.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.1.00.0803041501500.22527@racer.site>

On Tue March 4 2008 9:03:15 am Johannes Schindelin wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Tue March 4 2008 1:09:59 am Sean wrote:
> > > repos follow the general naming convention of ending in .git relink
> > > will work.  That is, if your bare repos are named repo.git rather than
> > > just repo.
> >
> > I never do that because I think it's silly to have to type .git
> > everytime ;-)
>
> Well, it is a convention, and if you choose not to follow it, that's what
> you get.

That's not documented anywhere.

I mean, git is plubming, right? I should be able to call it myrepo.exe if I like, and as long as it has a .git dir with stuff in it, or is bare, it should just work.

Show 5 quoted lines

> > If I give people a git:// url, they already know it's a Git repo, I
> > figure.
>
> So you must use "--git-dir" _everytime_ you are working with Git inside
> the repo.

That's not been my experience. In fact, I can 'git log' quite happily inside a bare repo. Why on earth should git-relink care what I have named my repo? It's not like git clone, push, pull, or anything else cares.

-- John