Just make the repository on the server side bare and you won't have to worry about checked out branches or renaming ".git" directory.
You already have a Git server
11–20 of 454 posts
Re: You already have a Git server
#12One note, xcode and maybe some other clients can't use http "dumb mode". Smart mode is not hard to set up, but it's a few lines of server config more than this hook. TIL about the update options for checked out branch. In practise though usually you want just the .git "bare" folder on server
I feel like this is a bug that Xcode should fix
Re: You already have a Git server
#13Maybe I'm too old, but are there people that really didn't know that any ssh access is sufficient for using git?
Filesystems and folders are foreign and elusive concepts to gen Z.
https://www.theverge.com/22684730/students-file-folder-direc...
Re: You already have a Git server
#14Maybe I'm too old, but are there people that really didn't know that any ssh access is sufficient for using git?
most people think git = github
IT support and cybersecurity teams responsible for blocking and enforcing network access restriction to "github.com" ... blocked a user request to install "git" locally citing the former policy. The organization in question does IT services, software development, and maintenance as their main business.
Re: You already have a Git server
#15I remember the first time I tried git, circa 2006, and the first 3 commands I tried were:
git init
git commit -am Initial\ commit
git clone . ssh://server/path/to/repo
Bitkeeper and a few other contemporaries would let you just push to a remote path that doesn’t exist yet and it’d create it. Maybe git added this since then, but at the time it seemed like a huge omission to me.
Re: You already have a Git server
#16Maybe I'm too old, but are there people that really didn't know that any ssh access is sufficient for using git?
most people think git = github
Nonsense...
Even someone who knows that git isn't GitHub might not be aware that ssh is enough to use git remotely. That's actually the case for me! I'm a HUGE fan of git, I mildly dislike GitHub, and I never knew that ssh was enough to push to a remote repo. Like, how does it even work, I don't need a server? I suspect this is due to my poor understanding of ssh, not my poor understand of git.
Re: You already have a Git server
#17this article is very bad advice. this way things are extremely brittle and there's a reason all those settings are disabled by default. you will lose data, save from very specific use cases
the vastly superior way is 'git bare' which is a first class supported command without hacky settings.
Re: You already have a Git server
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
most people think git = github
I always found these sort of categorical denigrations to be off base. If most people do think git = github then that's because they were taught it by somebody. A lot of somebodies for "most people". Likely by the same somebodies who also come to places like this. It has always taken a village to raise a child and that is just as true for an infant as a junior programmer. But instead we live in a sad world of "why did…
[flagged]
Re: You already have a Git server
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
most people think git = github
I always found these sort of categorical denigrations to be off base. If most people do think git = github then that's because they were taught it by somebody. A lot of somebodies for "most people". Likely by the same somebodies who also come to places like this. It has always taken a village to raise a child and that is just as true for an infant as a junior programmer. But instead we live in a sad world of "why did…
Humans are fallible, relying on hearsay is unprofessional, learn your craft properly.
Imagine what the equivalent argumentation for a lawyer or nurse would be. Those rules ought to apply for engineers, too.
Re: You already have a Git server
#20As a git user "not by choice" (my preference going for mercurial every single day), I never understood why git needs this distinction between bare/non-bare (or commit vs staging for that matter). Seems like yet another leaky abstraction/bad design choice.