On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 06:20:52PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I think sending 0{40} would break older clients, but older clients cannot
> clone from an empty repository anyway, so that should not be so bad. I
> however do not think it is such a big thing to be able to clone void
> anyway.
>
> You just have to train yourself to announce that your repository is
> clonable _after_ making it actually clonable.
I disagree. 99% of the time we see people complain about this, it is not
"I tried to announce my repo to people but it didn't have any commits"
but rather "why must I hack, init remote, then push, instead of init
remote, hack, push"[1].
That is, some segment of people (myself included) want to say first "I'm
starting a new project, and so I'm going to create a spot for it on my
server". Of course we can train ourselves to do it in the other order,
but it is an unnecessary complication.
-Peff
[1] Actually, it is more than just arbitrary preference. It is less
typing to do:
ssh remote 'mkdir foo && cd foo && git init --bare'
git clone remote:foo
hack hack hack; commit
git push
than
git init
hack hack hack; commit
ssh remote 'mkdir foo && cd foo && git init --bare'
git push
git remote add -m refs/heads/master origin remote:foo
--
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
