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

From: Nico -telmich- Schottelius <nico-linux-git@schottelius.org>
Date: Jan 29, 2009, 12:04 UTC
Message-ID: <20090129120455.GD3027@denkbrett.schottelius.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090129114834.GA10792@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King [Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 06:48:34AM -0500]:

Show 9 quoted lines

> [...] 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

I must confess, as a user I would like to do

1. create local repo

2. create a remote

3. push it

I don't care about creating empty repos somewhere: My aim is to publish my work, that's it.

Comments on the steps:

  1.1. I don't care whether I push a empty repo or not. But pushing an empty
       one does not make much sense, so refusing this would be reasonable

  1.2. When creating a new repo, it would be helpful if I can directly add a
       description: git init [description] would be nice to have

  2.1. I (as a user) understand that I need to create a remote where I have to
       push to. It would be helpful to specify --track-this/--merge-this to
       have it automatically connected to the current branch

  3.1.  I would really like to see something like git push
        --create[-if-not-exists]. This makes sense for me, but could also
        be a global configuration option (push.autocreate = true|false).

Just a comment from a user's point of view ;-)

Sincerly,

Nico

-- 
Think about Free and Open Source Software (FOSS).
http://nico.schottelius.org/documentations/foss/the-term-foss/

PGP: BFE4 C736 ABE5 406F 8F42  F7CF B8BE F92A 9885 188C