Menu
The same question exists for mercurial, and I'm wondering how this applies to git? In particular, I'm interested in cases where there are two local repos, and copying between servers using rsync or such.
Also, if the original repo is itself cloned from, say gitorious, and I copy it, then gitorious will still exist as a remote (tracked by the master branch) in the copy, right? Does this happen if the copy is cloned instead?
531
When you download the repo it just gives you all the source files with no . git so you dont have the repo. When you clone you get a copy of the history and it is a functional git repo.
Git clone is used to copy an existing Git repository into a new local directory. The Git clone command will create a new local directory for the repository, copy all the contents of the specified repository, create the remote tracked branches, and checkout an initial branch locally.
Any public Git repository can be forked or cloned. A fork creates a completely independent copy of Git repository. In contrast to a fork, a Git clone creates a linked copy that will continue to synchronize with the target repository.
Yes you can, but there's no need to copy the full working tree. You can copy just the . git folder without the working tree (i.e. as a "bare" repo) and then checkout the latest working tree on the other machine.
Cloning a repository gives you a copy of that repository and configures the original repository as a remote.
Copying a repository just gives you a copy of that repository. (Though you can of course just add the remote definition afterwards via git remote add.)
Copying a repository copies its .git/config file, and thus its remotes. Cloning a repository does not copy the config file, and thus the remotes are not shared. (The repository that was cloned from is set as the origin remote in the resulting clone.)
87
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With
