From: Daniel Barkalow Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:07:35 GMT Subject: Re: Re: Add "clone" support to lntree Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20050416230000.GN19099@pasky.ji.cz> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: > Dear diary, on Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 05:06:54AM CEST, I got a letter > where Daniel Barkalow told me that... > > > I think "fork" is as good as anything for describing the operation. I had > > thought about "clone" because it seemed to fill the role that "bk > > clone" had (although I never used BK, so I'm not sure). It doesn't seem > > useful to me to try cloning multiple remote repositories, since you'd get > > a copy of anything common from each; you just want to suck everything into > > the same .git/objects and split off working directories. > > Actually, what about if git pull outside of repository did what git > clone does now? I'd kinda like clone instead of fork too. This seems like the best solution to me, too. Although that would make pull take a URL when making a new repository and not otherwise, which might be confusing. "init-remote" perhaps, or maybe just have "init" do it if given a URL? -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank*