Re: What is the idea for bare repositories?

From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
Date: Nov 12, 2007, 16:17 UTC
Message-ID: <86pryf7815.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz>
In-Reply-To: <20071112131927.GA1701@c3sl.ufpr.br>

Bruno Cesar Ribas <ribas@c3sl.ufpr.br> writes:

Show 14 quoted lines

> A bare repository is the way to publish your changes to the public.
> git-daemon  and http-clones use a bare repository that only contains
> adminsitrative files.
>
> From man page
>        --bare Make a bare GIT repository. That is, instead of creating
>               <directory> and placing the administrative files in
>               <directory>/.git, make the <directory> itself the $GIT_DIR. This
>               obviously implies the -n because there is nowhere to check out
>               the working tree. Also the branch heads at the remote are copied
>               directly to corresponding local branch heads, without mapping
>               them to refs/remotes/origin/. When this option is used, neither
>               remote-tracking branches nor the related configuration variables
>               are created.

Fine. So why don't the following commands complain? Apart from git-reset without arguments (which could probably get along without a working dir), they are supposed to employ a working directory.

Show 9 quoted lines

> On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 02:11:58PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> 
>> I have a repository declared as bare.  Some commands treat it as such,
>> other's don't.  For example, I get
>> 
>> git-diff [no complaint]
>> git-reset [no complaint]
>> git-reset --hard
>> HEAD is now at db862c1... installmanager.sh: setze GIT_WORK_TREE

-- 
David Kastrup