rsbecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On December 28, 2024 10:47 AM crstml@xxxxxxxxx wrote:I would like to put a set of files under version control and I have some issues with the workflow. Let me explain: First I create the bare repository with the command: git init --bare -b main ~/rps/project-x.git Then I can proceed in one of the following ways: ---- Method 1 ---- By first cloning the remote repository locally and next putting the files under version control. All running the following commands: 1 cd ~/projects; 2 git clone ~/rps/project-x.git project-x 3 cp ~/my-existing-project-x-files/* project-x 4 cd project-x 5 git add . 6 git commit -m "fc" 7 git push origin 8 rm -rf ~/my-existing-project-x-files # clean your home folder ---- Method 2 ---- By putting the existing files under version control and next adding the remote. Running the following commands: 1 cd ~/projects/project-x 2 git init -b main 3 git add . 4 git commit -m "fc" 5 git remote add origin ~/rps/project-x.git 6 git push --set-upstream origin main Let me discuss both these methods: Method 1: Everything works but the cp statement may be problematic. If you have hidden files (starting with .) or if you want to preserve the file permissions and owenership, the invokation of the cp command is trickier. After you copy the files all the next statements work well. The main branch in the cloned repository is connected to the upstream origin/main branch and "git push" will work. There is one more small problem with this workflow: the statement 8 is ugly. Method 2 Everything is very clean (apparently). We don't have to think to file permissions, hidden files, tricky cp invocations and there is no need to clean your home folder at the end. We are interested to put files under version control, so we focus only the version control system. The problem with this workflow (from my point of view) is the statement 6. This statement makes two things which is contrary to the UNIX philosophy: programs that do one thing and do it well. 1) The command connects the local main branch to the remote origin/main branch. 2) Pushes the files to the remote. From my point of view instead of executing the statement 6 I would like to execute the following two statements that I will number here as 6.1 and 6.2: 6.1 # To connect the main branch to origin/main # git branch -u origin/main main 6.2 # To push to the remote. # git push origin However, the statement 6.1 does not work. Git prints the following message. hint: If you are planning on basing your work on an upstream hint: branch that already exists at the remote, you may need to hint: run "git fetch" to retrieve it. hint: hint: If you are planning to push out a new local branch that hint: will track its remote counterpart, you may want to use hint: "git push -u" to set the upstream config as you push. hint: Disable this message with "git config advice.setUpstreamFailure false" The end solution it suggests to use with "git push -u" which is the same as the statement on line 6 that I would like to avoid. I would add that by issuing a "git fecth" before 6.1 would not bring the remote branch origin/main in the local repository. The core of the problem is that the local branch main is not connected to the origin/main branch. My question is: Is it possible when applying the method 2 to have (without pushing) the local main branch connected to the remote origin/main branch as in the case of method 1 which by cloning connects these branches.I think method 2 is failing for you because you do not have origin/main in your local repository. That requires a git fetch. Git fetch will not overwrite your working area, but is needed so that tracking can occur with an existing remote branch. The reason git push -u works is that the resolution of your branch tracking can be worked out by git as part of the push, where the remote reference is known. Without that, the git branch -u does not work (no reference). So do the git fetch as 5.9 in Method 2, then 6.1 should work, assuming origin/main exists in your remote. This downloads the clone history without modifying your work area, so it should be fine.
Good observations. I've imagined that the commit history and the configuration of the remote repository is necessary to be known to the local git and I've also performed a test in which I've executed a "git fetch" before 6.1 (without "git fetch" no information from the remote repository exists locally). Unfortunately it did not work and git printed out the following message: hint: hint: If you are planning on basing your work on an upstream hint: branch that already exists at the remote, you may need to hint: run "git fetch" to retrieve it. hint: hint: If you are planning to push out a new local branch that hint: will track its remote counterpart, you may want to use hint: "git push -u" to set the upstream config as you push. hint: Disable this message with "git config advice.setUpstreamFailure false"
--Randall
