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 
for part of this answer.)


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to