Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
> Well, if the OP had used "git push <bla> master" instead of
> "... master:master", it would have worked. I am unaware of any tutorial
> that suggests the latter, only of tutorials that suggest the former.
I did recheck the tutorials, and did not find the code I was
using. So there was nothing incorrect in the documentation.
As for "master working where "master:master" didn't, this only exposes a
more complex set of rules. I was not hoping for a more complex set of
rules to learn, as GIT tried to figure out what I meant. I was hoping
for a simpler command that did what I told it to do, and I was given it
by Junio Hamano.
What distracted me was that after the "git --bare init", there seemed to
be a incompletely defined setup. This sent me down the wrong path.
Although there was a master branch to which HEAD pointed, there was no
ref/heads/master file or even a "packed-refs". This also confuses the
the "git branch" command, so that when I initial tried "git --bare
branch" it seemed unaware of any master branch. I then tried:
$ git --bare branch refs/heads/master
fatal: Not a valid object name: 'master'.
If there isn't an initial master branch, then shouldn't "git branch" be
able to create one. And if there is one, shouldn't the automatic rules
explained in git-rev-parse man page find it? The error messages from
the branch command is what got me on the wrong logical path.
The man page for git-init says:
This command creates an empty git repository - basically a .git directory
with subdirectories for objects, refs/heads, refs/tags, and template
files. An initial HEAD file that references the HEAD of the master branch
is also created.
Which is true, but although there is a HEAD that references the
master branch, there isn't really any master branch. It might
say something like:
This command creates an empty git repository - basically a .git directory
with subdirectories for objects, refs/heads, refs/tags, and template
files. An initial HEAD file references the refs/heads/master branch
which is created with the first commit.
This would at least somewhat explain "git branch" results.
The man page for git-push seems clear to me now. I should have
more closely read the last example. The first example might
be changed to say:
git push origin master
Find a ref that matches master in the source repository (most
likely, it would find refs/heads/master), and update (or create) the
same ref, refs/heads/master, in the origin repository with it.
--
Barry Fishman
-
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
