On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 5:38 AM, Angelo Borsotti
<angelo.borso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I guess that a tarball would be the distro of the project, i.e. what is
> deployed,
> while a released project should contain the .git repo, with all the history
> in it
> so as to let future developers have all the data to start a new development.
> In such a case what is not needed are the files since they are also
> contained
> in the .git repo. I was wandering why there should instead be a need to have
> also the files (note that a directory with a .git in it and no other files
> is a
> project with a pending change in it that is the removal of all files, as
> reported
> by git status).

Ah, you're talking about a "bare" repository, with no working
directory.  That's actually the most common way to set up a repository
that's meant to be distribution point.  In fact, if the repository is
*not* bare, then by default you won't be able to push to the branch
that's checked out.

To create a bare repo, use 'git init --bare' or 'git clone --bare <other-repo>'.

To make an existing repo bare, use 'git config --bool core.bare true',
move the .git directory and give it a better name (i.e., 'mv .git
../my-project.git'), then you can delete the old working directory.

(Credit to 
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2199897/git-convert-normal-to-bare-repository
for part of this answer.)

-PJ

Gehm's Corollary to Clark's Law: Any technology distinguishable from
magic is insufficiently advanced.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git 
for human beings" group.
To post to this group, send email to git-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.

Reply via email to