Re: howto to run git without a master branch

From: Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@web.de>
Date: Mar 9, 2014, 07:46 UTC
Message-ID: <531C1C69.6080809@web.de>
In-Reply-To: <531B8D91.6020800@ist.utl.pt>

On 2014-03-08 22.37, Carlos Pereira wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> Hi,
> git newbie here.
> 
> I would like to work with two main branches: master-g and master-x, instead of the usual master, and apparently git does not like this.
> 
> After creating a local repository with these two branches, and a server repository with git init --bare, and pushing the two branches:
> 
> git remote add origin foo@bar:~/path/test.git
> git push origin master-g
> git push origin master-x
> 
> everything seems fine, but cloning:
> git clone foo@bar:~/path/test.git
> terminates with a warning: remote HEAD refers to nonexistent ref, unable to checkout.

This is because Git is trying to be nice: When you clone, it tries to checkout a branch for you.

What happens when you only have 1 branch, lets say master-x? If I clone the bare repo here, with only 1 branch, this branch is automatically checked out (tested on 1.8.5.2)

What happens when you have 2 branches on the server? Git really can not make a decision which one is the right one to check out for you, so if you have 2 branched like "master" and "develop", it checks out the "master" branch for you.

But if you have "master-x" and "master-g" then Git has no clue, which one could be you favorite one (and neither have I)

What does "git branch" say?
(I think nothing)
What does "git branch -r" say?
(I think "origin/master-g" and "origin/master-x")

Show 12 quoted lines

> 
> On the original local repository, I have:
>>cat HEAD
> ref: refs/heads/master-x
> 
> But on the server repository or the clone repository, HEAD points to master branch, that does not exist:
>>cat HEAD
> ref: refs/heads/master
> 
> Replacing in the HEAD file, master by master-g (on the server before cloning, or on the clone after cloning) seems to solve the problem.
> 
> Shall I worry about this? does my fix (editing directly HEAD on the server) fixes really the problem?

No

>what would be the correct procedure to avoid this?

(Don't worry if there is a warning, when Git tries to be nice) (Or feel free to send a patch to this list which improves the user experience)

> 
> Thank you!
> Carlos Pereira,