Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jan 2009, #07; Wed, 28)

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jan 29, 2009, 11:48 UTC
Message-ID: <20090129114834.GA10792@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <351A6988-32EB-473F-B6E5-8FBB38D91F88@ai.rug.nl>

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:40:42AM +0000, Pieter de Bie wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> This is true in all cases. If you create a new branch in any
> repository, push that, and later do a 'git pull', you get that
> message. I agree it's not the nicest way to handle things, but this is
> not an issue with the  clone, it's an issue of pushing new branches in
> general.

Right. I guess I was hoping by cloning an existing repository, even one with no commits on the branch, that we could somehow remember that we are "on" the master branch. I think that is what people who ask for empty cloning really want:

  1. make a bare upstream

  2. clone empty repo

  3. create commits

  4. git push / git pull, as if we had cloned non-empty repo

And I know that it is not very "git" to talk about empty branches, since branches are pointers into the DAG. But we already do similar trickery with "yet to be born" branches by putting a dangling symref into HEAD. But I don't think there's any way currently to send those dangling symrefs across the git protocol, which is what would be required to do the above accurately.

-Peff