Uwe Kleine-König venit, vidit, dixit 04.10.2010 10:50: > Hello Michael, > > On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 10:23:13AM +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote: >> Uwe Kleine-König venit, vidit, dixit 04.10.2010 09:50: >>> Hello Michael, >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 09:25:17AM +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote: >>>> Steven Rostedt venit, vidit, dixit 01.10.2010 23:16: >>>>> On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 13:18 -0700, Darren Hart wrote: >>>>>> 2010/10/1 Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>>>>>> Some people in #linux-rt claimed that you cannot define "--mirror" with >>>>>>> "mirror". >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> I'd say "mirror" is a commonly known term for an exact copy. Moreover, >>>> the text below doesn't explain what a mirror is either, only how >>>> "update" behaves in it. >>> hmm. The --mirror option doesn't have any effect (apart from the >>> changes in the config file) until you update. So I think it's natural >>> to talk about git update. No? >> >> "git clone" (with or without --mirror) does a couple of things, and it >> does them differently when "--mirror" is used. It mirrors each branch >> from the source repo in the target repo under the same name, including >> for example any remote branches in the source repo. This is completely >> different without "--mirror", where clone does not look at the source's >> remote branches at all. Also, it sets up a mirroring refspec, i.e. >> +refs/*:refs/* > Ah, didn't notice that. > >> [...] >> This makes me think that --mirror should be explained on top of --bare. > OK. > >> For example: >> >> In addition to the mapping of local branches to local branches which >> --bare does, --mirror maps all refs which the source has under the same >> name in the target (including remote branches, notes etc.) and sets up a >> refspec configuration so that all these refs are updated by a `git >> update` in the target repo. > Hmm, I didn't understand this when I read it the first few times. The > special thing is that --mirror maps *all* refs, not *same name*. Yep, my sentence was bad, it could be misunderstood. > > So maybe: > > Set up a mirror of the remote repository. This implies `--bare`. > Compared to `--bare`, `--mirror` doesn't only map local branches of "does not" > the remote to local branches of the target but all refs > (including remote branches, notes etc.) and sets up a refspec Maybe "of the source" for "of the remote"? Because remote comes up right after in a different meaning. > configuration such that all these refs are overwritten by a > `git remote update` in the target repository. > I like that a lot! > I choosed to write "overwritten" instead of "updated" to make it clearer > that it makes no sence to push into these branches from a different > source. Should this be noted more explicit? "update" may be more Git lingo but I think either is fine. "overwritten" makes it clearer this is not a repo to do development in... Cheers, Michael -- 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