Re: Git ticket / issue tracking ERA: Git shouldn't allow to push a new branch called HEAD

From: Frans Klaver <fransklaver@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 23, 2011, 21:30 UTC
Message-ID: <op.v5e4podr0aolir@keputer.lokaal>
In-Reply-To: <7v4nxudb73.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:02:08 +0100, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 25 quoted lines

> Frans Klaver <fransklaver@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> The note from the maintainer[1] mentions
>>
>> 	git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
>> 	git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git
>> 	https://github.com/git/git
>> 	https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
>>
>> I would assume one of those would be a nomination for 'official' repo.
>>
>> Maybe something for Scott C. to address?
>
> As long as the link says "Git source repository" without "the official",
> Scott is doing the right thing. It is just one of the copies that I push
> into, so it may be considered more official than a fork of my history by  
> a
> random unknown person.
>
> As Git is distributed, we do not need a single "official" repository. If
> you really want to name one, my private working repository at my home
> machine would be what is closest to one, as patches and pull requests are
> processed there and then the result is pushed out to the above four and a
> few others. But that "official" one is not exposed to the outside world  
> ;-)

Since official is a rather unreal term here, let's just drop it. There are a few repositories that the maintainer currently pushes to, and those are the most reliable ones to use if you want the latest git vanilla. Other than that, there's going to be no difference from the next git.git clone.

It might remove some confusion if these repos would be reflected on websites focusing on git as they are in the maintainers notes, but that's probably up to the respective webmasters then.

Frans