Sven Verdoolaege <skimo@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:59:38PM +0200, Jan Hudec wrote:
>> We could store the GIT_DIR of submodule within the GIT_DIR of the
>> superproject instead of the submodule directory itself. So instead of:
>> /
>> /.git
>> /subdir
>> /subdir/.git
>>
>> There would be:
>> /
>> /.git
>> /subdir
>> /.git/submodules/submodule-name.git
>
> I have this already, except that I use /.git/submodules/submodule-name/.git
> because I was too lazy to figure out how to get clone to use the above
> without using --bare, because --bare disables separate-remotes.
>
> Is there any good reason, btw for --bare not to do separate-remotes ?
Traditinoally, the purpose of --bare is to set up distribution
points, either CVS style "shared public repository that
everybody pushes into and fetches from", or "owned by me and I
push my change into it to publish". In either case, there is no
point of even having an upstream in such a repository, let
alone refs/remotes/origin/ hierarchy.
So that's the "good reason" part.
Having said that, last night I was thinking about making the
layout after a clone a bit more flexible and orthogonal to
existence of working tree. What got me thinking about it was
different from your motivation, though.
If you have an ordinary working tree, and if you want to have a
clone of that working tree that you can work in, independently
(i.e. not treating the repository you cloned from any specially
from other repositories by marking it "origin"), currently there
is no straightforward way to do so, other than doing
something like:
(1) do a --bare clone, which would create "project.git";
(2) mkdir "project" && mv "project.git" "project/.git";
(3) edit "project/.git/config" and mark it as a non-bare
repository.
(4) "git checkout -f HEAD".
I'd call this a "pure" clone. It is as close as the original
repository you would get without copying other per-repository
data such as .git/info, .git/config, so that you can start using
it as an _independent _repository. It is like a --bare clone
but with a working tree associated with it.
What you want is probably the opposite. A bare, but non-pure
clone. By non-pure, what I mean is:
(1) it has an upstream ("origin"), hence
(2) it has refs/remotes/origin, and "remotes.origin.*"
If the word "non-pure" has a negative connotation, you could
call it "a follower repository".
In short, the current behaviour of --bare is "bare and pure",
and clone without --bare is "not bare, and a follower". What I
wanted was "not bare, but pure", and I think what you want is
"bare, but a follower".
-
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
