Re: Newbie grief

Rich Pixley <rich.pixley@xxxxxxxx> · Thu, 03 May 2012 11:26:20 -0700

On 5/3/12 09:20 , Hallvard Breien Furuseth wrote:

  On Thu, 03 May 2012 16:09:15 -0000, Michael Witten wrote:

On Thu, 03 May 2012 14:23:59 +0200, Hallvard Furuseth wrote:

I mean 'git clone --bare bar.git foo.git' does not give foo.git
a remote named 'origin' with a branch origin/master.  Not sure
if there is a _simple_ way to do it well either.  init + fetch
above does not try to hardlink objects/packs like clone does.

(...)
   $ git init bar.git; cd bar.git
   $ echo a>  a; git add a; git commit -m a; cd ..
   $ git clone --bare bar.git foo.git; cd foo.git

    $ git branch -a
    * master

 From `git help clone':

   --bare
       Make a bare GIT repository. That is, instead of creating
       <directory>  and placing the administrative files in
       <directory>/.git, make the<directory>  itself the $GIT_DIR.
       This obviously implies the -n because there is nowhere to
       check out the working tree. Also the branch heads at the
       remote are copied directly to corresponding local branch
       heads, without mapping them to refs/remotes/origin/. When
       this option is used, neither remote-tracking branches nor the
       related configuration variables are created.

  Yes, I know.  I just don't know why.

I do.

It's because creating a string of repositories is a nuisance in git 

because of the remote/foo practice.  You have to manually fetch and 

merge at each location.

In other systems, the branches are tracked identically.  You see master, 

I see master.  The only differences we see are any changes I've created 

that haven't yet been pushed to you or vice verse.  But since git can't 

handle collisions in the repository the way other systems do, it's 

forced to use the geographic branch scheme for non-bare repositories.  

Bare repositories don't have the collision between repository branch and 

working directory copy in git, so with bare repositories, git can use 

the identical branch scheme, (although it still refuses colliding pushes).

If bare repositories used the triangulation approach of non-bare 

repositories, then automation would be considerably more complicated.  

So would repository chaining.

What I don't understand is why git chose this less functional 

architecture over the previously existing practice that doesn't have 

these limitations, although "because that's what BitKeeper did" might be 

the sad answer.

--rich
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html