From: Michael J Gruber Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 07:25:17 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/git-clone: describe --mirror more verbose Message-ID: <4CA9815D.3040801@drmicha.warpmail.net> In-Reply-To: <1285967766.6750.2.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Steven Rostedt venit, vidit, dixit 01.10.2010 23:16: > On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 13:18 -0700, Darren Hart wrote: >> 2010/10/1 Uwe Kleine-König : >>> Some people in #linux-rt claimed that you cannot define "--mirror" with >>> "mirror". >>> I'd say "mirror" is a commonly known term for an exact copy. Moreover, the text below doesn't explain what a mirror is either, only how "update" behaves in it. >>> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König >> >> Acked-by: Darren 'Some People' Hart > > Acked-by: Steven Rostedt > > -- Steve > >> >>> --- >>> Documentation/git-clone.txt | 11 ++++++++++- >>> 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-clone.txt b/Documentation/git-clone.txt >>> index dc7d3d1..5eedfbd 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/git-clone.txt >>> +++ b/Documentation/git-clone.txt >>> @@ -128,7 +128,16 @@ objects from the source repository into a pack in the cloned repository. >>> configuration variables are created. >>> >>> --mirror:: >>> - Set up a mirror of the remote repository. This implies `--bare`. >>> + Set up a mirror of the remote repository. >>> + Using >>> + >>> + git remote update origin >>> + >>> + (or `` instead of `origin` if -o is given) in the resulting "remote" has no "-o" option. You probably mean the "clone" option, but the way it's written it refers to the preceding command. >>> + repository overwrites the local branches without asking. >>> + This implies `--bare`. Again, "this" refers to the preceding sentence. But the update behavior does not imply "--bare". Specifying "--mirror" for "clone" implies "--bare". >>> + Without --mirror (but with --bare) git remote update doesn't touch any >>> + branches at all. That's not true. It just doesn't touch any local branches; it updates the remote branches, of course. I'm sorry but I can't consider this patch an improvement. Michael