Re: Cloning empty repositories, was Re: What is the idea for bare repositories?

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

If your publishing repo is local like the above, then

In my case, it's more often a "backed-up and slow NFS disk" Vs "local
disk" than a matter of publishing, but the result is similar.

 $ mkdir /tmp/junk && cd /tmp/junk
 $ git init; tar xf /tmp/project.tar; git add .; ... populate ... 
 $ git commit -m initial
 $ cd /else/where/to/publish
 $ git clone --bare /tmp/junk myproject.git
 $ rm -fr /tmp/junk

would be enough to get your published repository started, isn't
it?  Then wouldn't:

 $ cd $HOME
 $ git clone /else/where/to/publish/myproject.git myproject

set up your ~/myproject exactly the same way as other people who
will work with that published repository?

Sure, it definitely works. But that (creating a temporary repository,
and right after, delete it) also is an extra step. Not a huge one, but
still an extra step.

Take the same with bzr for example:

$ bzr init ~/repo
$ bzr checkout ~/repo ~/local/work/
$ cd ~/local/work/
<put files, bzr add, bzr commit>
<continue working in ~/local/work/, commit, whatever>

(bzr checkout is a bit different from git clone, but the difference it
not totally relevant here).

I litterally have just two bzr commands before I can start working
normally.

-- 
Matthieu