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

> Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr> writes:
>
>> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
>>
>>>> > On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> > So you need to populate the repository before starting _anyway_.
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> Last time I checked, the thread was talking about bare repository.
>>>
>>> Look at the subject.  "Cloning empty repositories."
>>
>> Look at the content. "cloning a empty bare repository".
>
> But both of Johannes's points apply equally well to an empty
> bare repository and to an empty non bare repository.  IOW,
> bareness does not matter to the suggestion Johannes gave.
>
> But you are acting as if the bareness of the target repository
> makes his point irrelevant.  I am a bit confused.
>
> About his point 1, I'd just stop at saying that "it is not so
> hard" does not mean "we do not have to make it even easier".
>
> His second point is also a real issue.  If you allowed cloning
> an empty repo (either bare or non-bare), then you and Bill can
> both clone from it, come up with an initial commit each.  Bill
> pushes his initial commit first.  Your later attempt to push
> will hopefully fail with "non fast forward", if you know better
> than forcing such a push, but then what?  You need to fetch, and
> merge (or rebase) your change on top of Bill's initial commit,
> and at that point the history you are trying to merge does not
> have any common ancestor with his history.