On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:

> Dear diary, on Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 05:06:54AM CEST, I got a letter
> where Daniel Barkalow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> > I think "fork" is as good as anything for describing the operation. I had
> > thought about "clone" because it seemed to fill the role that "bk
> > clone" had (although I never used BK, so I'm not sure). It doesn't seem
> > useful to me to try cloning multiple remote repositories, since you'd get
> > a copy of anything common from each; you just want to suck everything into
> > the same .git/objects and split off working directories.
> Actually, what about if git pull outside of repository did what git
> clone does now? I'd kinda like clone instead of fork too.

This seems like the best solution to me, too. Although that would make
pull take a URL when making a new repository and not otherwise, which
might be confusing. "init-remote" perhaps, or maybe just have "init" do it
if given a URL?

*This .sig left intentionally blank*

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to