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

From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@imag.fr>
Date: Nov 14, 2007, 09:49 UTC
Message-ID: <vpqbq9xw40s.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>
In-Reply-To: <7vejetr7vn.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> If your publishing repo is local like the above, then

In my case, it's more often a "backed-up and slow NFS disk" Vs "local disk" than a matter of publishing, but the result is similar.

Show 15 quoted lines

>  $ mkdir /tmp/junk && cd /tmp/junk
>  $ git init; tar xf /tmp/project.tar; git add .; ... populate ... 
>  $ git commit -m initial
>  $ cd /else/where/to/publish
>  $ git clone --bare /tmp/junk myproject.git
>  $ rm -fr /tmp/junk
>
> would be enough to get your published repository started, isn't
> it?  Then wouldn't:
>
>  $ cd $HOME
>  $ git clone /else/where/to/publish/myproject.git myproject
>
> set up your ~/myproject exactly the same way as other people who
> will work with that published repository?

Sure, it definitely works. But that (creating a temporary repository, and right after, delete it) also is an extra step. Not a huge one, but still an extra step.

Take the same with bzr for example:

$ bzr init ~/repo $ bzr checkout ~/repo ~/local/work/ $ cd ~/local/work/ <put files, bzr add, bzr commit> <continue working in ~/local/work/, commit, whatever>

(bzr checkout is a bit different from git clone, but the difference it not totally relevant here).

I litterally have just two bzr commands before I can start working normally.

-- 
Matthieu