From: Sitaram Chamarty <sitaramc@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:20:34 GMT
Subject: Re: Make a non-bare repo bare.
Message-ID: <2e24e5b90907161820o5ee24491j8744a8652e7dec26@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7v8wio8i73.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 2:21 AM, Junio C Hamano<gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Sitaram Chamarty <sitaramc@gmail.com> writes:

>> The linked procedure uses git clone --bare.  It is my belief (and
>> please correct me if I'm wrong) that only a git clone --mirror
>> actually does what you want here -- a mere "bare" clone would lose
>> your remotes and their tracking branches would it not?
>
> Depends on "what you want here".
>
> I assumed that the request was to set up the most typical use of a bare
> repository, that is to prepare a distribution point, separate from your
> primary working repository with a work tree, from which you push your
> updates into this new bare repository.
>
> And in such a distribution point, you do not need nor want remotes.  The
> point of remote tracking branches is to let you peek what others are doing
> and merge with them, and that is done while you advance your history in
> your primary working area with the work tree.  It does not happen in your
> distribution point.

I agree, bares dont have remotes, normally.

I was speaking purely from a technical point of view.  Contrast, if
you will, with the other method seen in the thread and elsewhere (the
mv repo/.git repo.git, rm -rf repo, git config core.bare in repo.git
stuff), which does preserve all this.

Anyway, you confirmed my _understanding_ of clone bare versus clone
mirror, which is what I was looking for.  Thanks!

Sitaram