On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 07:09:54PM -0800, Ian Dees wrote: > Initialized empty Git repository in path/to/new-repo/.git > 0 blocks > > I'd wager "empty" means, "empty because Git is about to populate it." > Even so, this wording could be a bit surprising to new adopters, > especially coupled with the "0 blocks" suffix (is it really creating > hardlinks on NTFS?). The impression is that the clone didn't work. > The impression is, of course, eventually dispelled by looking inside > the new directory. Is there a way to clarify the overall status of > the clone operation? The '0 blocks' actually comes from cpio, because it's hardlinking. I complained about this when it first appeared, but getting cpio to print something sane is a bit tricky. However, there has been talk of making git-clone a builtin in the near future, and I suspect it will be much easier to generate more user-friendly muessages then. So it is probably simplest to hold your breath and see what comes of that effort (though I can't seem to find any mention of it in the archives...) > One other minor thing I noticed while futzing with clones: if you try > to clone an empty repository, you get the same "Initialized empty > repository" message, even though no such second directory is created. > I'm not suggesting Git should suddenly start allowing empty cloning, > but perhaps a "Empty repository; skipping clone" message would be > helpful. What version are you using? This should be fixed in v1.5.4 (see commit ef4cffde). -Peff - 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
