Hi, [please do not cull me from the Cc: list, especially when you are quoting me] On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Barry Fishman wrote: > 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. Good. Just for my curiousity: where in the documentation did you look for help? (We might want to advertise "git push <nick> <branch>" more loudly there.) > 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". That means that there was no master branch. Before the first commit, a branch does not exist. We are stricter in that regard than other SCMs. > If there isn't an initial master branch, then shouldn't "git branch" be > able to create one. Why? I really do not see the point in creating a branch which is named different than "master", when you have nothing to begin with. Just use "master". As easy as that. If you really have to paint the bike shed, you can always rename your branch later, when you got something, by "git branch -m <new-branch-name>". > 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. How about "Your first commit will create the master branch" instead of the last sentence? Ciao, Dscho - 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
