Re: Cloning empty repositories, was Re: What is the idea for bare repositories?

From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
Date: Nov 12, 2007, 17:32 UTC
Message-ID: <86ve875pzh.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711121715090.4362@racer.site>

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

Show 20 quoted lines

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>
>> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
>> 
>> > On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Jan Wielemaker wrote:
>> >
>> >> I found out that cloning a empty bare repository produces nothing at 
>> >> all, [...]
>> >
>> > If they are empty, what exactly do you mean to clone?
>> 
>> I'd expect an empty repository, with the git remote configured 
>> correctly.
>
> Yeah, right.
>
> Last time I checked, those geneticists did not clone thin air.  They 
> always waited until they had something to clone.

Show 12 quoted lines

>> >> a empty bare repository produces nothing at 
>> >> all, [...]
>> >
>> > If they are empty, what exactly do you mean to clone?
>> 
>> I'd expect an empty repository, with the git remote configured 
>> correctly.
>
> Yeah, right.
>
> Last time I checked, those geneticists did not clone thin air.  They 
> always waited until they had something to clone.

git-init does not perform sexual intercourse, either. I don't see why geneticists should be relevant for determining what git-clone does.

-- 
David Kastrup