I wander whether man git-clone is correct when it says "creates remote-tracking branches for each branch in the cloned repository". IMHO remote-tracking branches in the original repository _are_ branches and they are _not_ cloned (when using git-clone with no options) - maybe this is worth noting very explicitly? When git newby like me converts a CVS repository, containing just few short old branches (stable release bug fixes) and then clones it around, with naive belief that clone is a 1:1 copy or something close, nasty surprise can happen: - converted repository has those branches, OK - clone of it also has them, but as a remote tracking branches - clone of clone has it as dangling objects only (can go away later) Trying to play it safe, I used git-clone many times while starting with git, and I got really nervous when I first discovered that my old stable release bug fix branch is not visible in some repositories :-) Is it just my failure to read those few hundred man pages carefully enough (I did my best :-) ), or something worth fixing in man git-clone and tutorials? Regards, Vaclav Hanzl -- 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
