On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:34:04PM +0100, Sverre Rabbelier wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 23:32, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Really? I have scripts that call clone (usually followed by building the > > result). Are you proposing that all scripts should "git init && git > > remote add && git fetch"? > > > > So I am strongly in favor of telling the difference between failure and > > emptiness. > > A switch then, '--allow-empty'? No, I don't mind success on cloning an empty repository. But I thought the issue at hand was that for some instances, we would report that we successfully created an empty repository, when in fact what happened was that we failed to clone a non-empty repository. And that that was fixable, but it was a problem with our code interfaces (which should be fixable) and not some fundamental limitation. Or am I misunderstanding the situation? -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
