Hi, On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Brandon Casey wrote: > Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Brandon Casey wrote: > > > >> If your statement above is rephrased to "I _want_ the original > >> repository to know that it has conjoined siblings.", then we have a > >> new repository type: > >> > >> 4) conjoined repository (it has multiple sibling repositories each > >> with their own working directory, but they all share and modify the > >> same .git directory) > > > > No. The repository does not even need a working directory (in which case > > we call it "bare"). > > The additional term "bare" that is used with such a repository without a > working directory implies to me that this is a "special" or "uncommon" > repository configuration. By the same reasoning, a "good day" would be a "special" or "uncommon" day. > So I hope you excuse me for referring to the result of git-clone as a > repository. I'll try to think of something else to call it (above I used > repo/workdir). But that's what I am saying: a git-clone clones a repository. If you happen to clone without the "--bare" option, it will additionally create a working directory. Hth, 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
