From: Andreas Ericsson Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:42:09 GMT Subject: Re: Cloning empty repositories, was Re: What is the idea for bare repositories? Message-ID: <473C0661.5010307@op5.se> In-Reply-To: <18235.34578.886521.944550@lisa.zopyra.com> Bill Lear wrote: > > What's wrong with 'git init --mirror git://host/repo'? It wouldn't match other --mirror options. You would want it to set up refs/remotes namespace for you, but the other --mirror options (those in push/fetch) are meant to explicitly ignore refs/remotes and make sure branches are named exactly the same on both sides (hence --mirror). I wouldn't mind if it was given some other option that did what you wanted, but having --mirror mean two such very different things would be bad. "git init --remote origin=git://host/repo", where the lhs of the equal sign would default to "origin" might be a good way to implement it. Personally I don't have any problems with the current way of getting things done, so it's not my itch. > >> (I actually think that it is another example of cvs/svn damage, where you >> _need_ to clone first, or otherwise you will _never_ be able to commit >> to the repository.) > > I think there is a tendency here to blame every shortcoming of git on > someone else's supposedly unsanitary past rather than facing up to > inherent problems in git itself. We have several very senior, very > dedicated software developers who LOVE git, and who loathe CVS, but > who nevertheless find many vexing issues in git. > git is not perfect. It's just better than everything else. Bringing up those vexing issues here is one way of making it better though, so thanks for doing that. :) -- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231