summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/Documentation/git-clone.txt
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorFilesLines
2020-03-22clone: document --filter optionsLibravatar Derrick Stolee1-1/+12
It turns out that the "--filter=<filter-spec>" option is not documented anywhere in the "git clone" page, and instead is detailed carefully in "git rev-list" where it serves a different purpose. Add a small bit about this option in the documentation. It would be worth some time to create a subsection in the "git clone" documentation about partial clone as a concept and how it can be a surprising experience. For example, "git checkout" will likely trigger a pack download. Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-12-25Merge branch 'ja/doc-markup-cleanup'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-2/+2
Doc cleanup. * ja/doc-markup-cleanup: doc: indent multi-line items in list doc: remove non pure ASCII characters
2019-12-13doc: remove non pure ASCII charactersLibravatar Jean-Noël Avila1-2/+2
Non ASCII characters may be handled by publishing chains, but right now, nothing indicates the encoding of files. Moreover, non ASCII source strings upset the localization toolchain. Signed-off-by: Jean-Noël Avila <jn.avila@free.fr> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-11-22clone: add --sparse modeLibravatar Derrick Stolee1-1/+7
When someone wants to clone a large repository, but plans to work using a sparse-checkout file, they either need to do a full checkout first and then reduce the patterns they included, or clone with --no-checkout, set up their patterns, and then run a checkout manually. This requires knowing a lot about the repo shape and how sparse-checkout works. Add a new '--sparse' option to 'git clone' that initializes the sparse-checkout file to include the following patterns: /* !/*/ These patterns include every file in the root directory, but no directories. This allows a repo to include files like a README or a bootstrapping script to grow enlistments from that point. During the 'git sparse-checkout init' call, we must first look to see if HEAD is valid, since 'git clone' does not have a valid HEAD at the point where it initializes the sparse-checkout. The following checkout within the clone command will create the HEAD ref and update the working directory correctly. Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-07-11Merge branch 'qn/clone-doc-use-long-form'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-17/+17
The "git clone" documentation refers to command line options in its description in the short form; they have been replaced with long forms to make them more recognisable. * qn/clone-doc-use-long-form: docs: git-clone: list short form of options first docs: git-clone: refer to long form of options
2019-07-02docs: git-clone: list short form of options firstLibravatar Quentin Nerden1-9/+9
List the short form of options (e.g.: '-l') before the long form (e.g. '--local'). This is to match the doc of git-add, git-commit, git-clean, git-branch... Signed-off-by: Quentin Nerden <quentin.nerden@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-07-02docs: git-clone: refer to long form of optionsLibravatar Quentin Nerden1-8/+8
To make the doc of git-clone easier to read, refer to the long form of the options (it is easier to guess what '--verbose' is doing than '-v'). Signed-off-by: Quentin Nerden <quentin.nerden@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-05-28clone: add `--remote-submodules` flagLibravatar Ben Avison1-1/+8
When using `git clone --recurse-submodules` there was previously no way to pass a `--remote` switch to the implicit `git submodule update` command for any use case where you want the submodules to be checked out on their remote-tracking branch rather than with the SHA-1 recorded in the superproject. This patch rectifies this situation. It actually passes `--no-fetch` to `git submodule update` as well on the grounds they the submodule has only just been cloned, so fetching from the remote again only serves to slow things down. Signed-off-by: Ben Avison <bavison@riscosopen.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2019-04-18clone: send server options when using protocol v2Libravatar Jonathan Tan1-0/+8
Commit 5e3548ef16 ("fetch: send server options when using protocol v2", 2018-04-24) taught "fetch" the ability to send server options when using protocol v2, but not "clone". This ability is triggered by "-o" or "--server-option". Teach "clone" the same ability, except that because "clone" already has "-o" for another parameter, teach "clone" only to receive "--server-option". Explain in the documentation, both for clone and for fetch, that server handling of server options are server-specific. This is similar to receive-pack's handling of push options - currently, they are just sent to hooks to interpret as they see fit. Signed-off-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-11-16Documentation/clone: document ignored configuration variablesLibravatar SZEDER Gábor1-0/+6
Due to limitations in the current implementation, some configuration variables specified via 'git clone -c var=val' (or 'git -c var=val clone') are ignored during the initial fetch and checkout. Let the users know which configuration variables are known to be ignored ('remote.origin.mirror' and 'remote.origin.tagOpt') under the documentation of 'git clone -c', along with hints to use the options '--mirror' and '--no-tags' instead. Signed-off-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-05-23Merge branch 'nd/doc-header'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-1/+1
Doc formatting fix. * nd/doc-header: doc: keep first level section header in upper case
2018-05-02doc: keep first level section header in upper caseLibravatar Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy1-1/+1
When formatted as a man page, 1st section header is always in upper case even if we write it otherwise. Make all 1st section headers uppercase to keep it close to the final output. This does affect html since case is kept there, but I still think it's a good idea to maintain a consistent style for 1st section headers. Some sections perhaps should become second sections instead, where case is kept, and for better organization. I will update if anyone has suggestions about this. While at there I also make some header more consistent (e.g. examples vs example) and fix a couple minor things here and there. Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-04-20doc/clone: update caption for GIT URLS cross-referenceLibravatar Todd Zullinger1-1/+1
The description of the <repository> argument directs readers to "See the URLS section below". When generating HTML this becomes a link to the "GIT URLS" section. When reading the man page in a terminal, the caption is slightly misleading. Use "GIT URLS" as the caption to avoid any confusion. Signed-off-by: Todd Zullinger <tmz@pobox.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-12-05Documentation/git-clone: improve description for submodule recursingLibravatar Stefan Beller1-8/+11
There have been a few complaints on the mailing list that git-clone doesn't respect the `submodule.recurse` setting, which every other command (that potentially knows how to deal with submodules) respects. In case of clone this is not beneficial to respect as the user may not want to obtain all submodules (assuming a pathspec of '.'). Improve the documentation such that the pathspec is mentioned in the synopsis to alleviate the confusion around the submodule recursion flag in git-clone. While at it clarify that the option can be given multiple times for complex pathspecs. Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-05-01clone: add a --no-tags option to clone without tagsLibravatar Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason1-1/+13
Add a --no-tags option to clone without fetching any tags. Without this change there's no easy way to clone a repository without also fetching its tags. When supplying --single-branch the primary remote branch will be cloned, but in addition tags will be followed & retrieved. Now --no-tags can be added --single-branch to clone a repository without tags, and which only tracks a single upstream branch. This option works without --single-branch as well, and will do a normal clone but not fetch any tags. Many git commands pay some fixed overhead as a function of the number of references. E.g. creating ~40k tags in linux.git will cause a command like `git log -1 >/dev/null` to run in over a second instead of in a matter of milliseconds, in addition numerous other things will slow down, e.g. "git log <TAB>" with the bash completion will slowly show ~40k references instead of 1. The user might want to avoid all of that overhead to simply use a repository like that to browse the "master" branch, or something like a CI tool might want to keep that one branch up-to-date without caring about any other references. Without this change the only way of accomplishing this was either by manually tweaking the config in a fresh repository: git init git && cat >git/.git/config <<EOF && [remote "origin"] url = git@github.com:git/git.git tagOpt = --no-tags fetch = +refs/heads/master:refs/remotes/origin/master [branch "master"] remote = origin merge = refs/heads/master EOF cd git && git pull Which requires hardcoding the "master" name, which may not be the main --single-branch would have retrieved, or alternatively by setting tagOpt=--no-tags right after cloning & deleting any existing tags: git clone --single-branch git@github.com:git/git.git && cd git && git config remote.origin.tagOpt --no-tags && git tag -l | xargs git tag -d Which of course was also subtly buggy if --branch was pointed at a tag, leaving the user in a detached head: git clone --single-branch --branch v2.12.0 git@github.com:git/git.git && cd git && git config remote.origin.tagOpt --no-tags && git tag -l | xargs git tag -d Now all this complexity becomes the much simpler: git clone --single-branch --no-tags git@github.com:git/git.git Or in the case of cloning a single tag "branch": git clone --single-branch --branch v2.12.0 --no-tags git@github.com:git/git.git Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2017-03-18clone: teach --recurse-submodules to optionally take a pathspecLibravatar Brandon Williams1-5/+9
Teach clone --recurse-submodules to optionally take a pathspec argument which describes which submodules should be recursively initialized and cloned. If no pathspec is provided, --recurse-submodules will recursively initialize and clone all submodules by using a default pathspec of ".". In order to construct more complex pathspecs, --recurse-submodules can be given multiple times. This also configures the 'submodule.active' configuration option to be the given pathspec, such that any future invocation of `git submodule update` will keep up with the pathspec. Additionally the switch '--recurse' is removed from the Documentation as well as marked hidden in the options array, to streamline the options for submodules. A simple '--recurse' doesn't convey what is being recursed, e.g. it could mean directories or trees (c.f. ls-tree) In a lot of other commands we already have '--recurse-submodules' to mean recursing into submodules, so advertise this spelling here as the genuine option. Signed-off-by: Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-10-10Merge branch 'nd/shallow-deepen'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-0/+8
The existing "git fetch --depth=<n>" option was hard to use correctly when making the history of an existing shallow clone deeper. A new option, "--deepen=<n>", has been added to make this easier to use. "git clone" also learned "--shallow-since=<date>" and "--shallow-exclude=<tag>" options to make it easier to specify "I am interested only in the recent N months worth of history" and "Give me only the history since that version". * nd/shallow-deepen: (27 commits) fetch, upload-pack: --deepen=N extends shallow boundary by N commits upload-pack: add get_reachable_list() upload-pack: split check_unreachable() in two, prep for get_reachable_list() t5500, t5539: tests for shallow depth excluding a ref clone: define shallow clone boundary with --shallow-exclude fetch: define shallow boundary with --shallow-exclude upload-pack: support define shallow boundary by excluding revisions refs: add expand_ref() t5500, t5539: tests for shallow depth since a specific date clone: define shallow clone boundary based on time with --shallow-since fetch: define shallow boundary with --shallow-since upload-pack: add deepen-since to cut shallow repos based on time shallow.c: implement a generic shallow boundary finder based on rev-list fetch-pack: use a separate flag for fetch in deepening mode fetch-pack.c: mark strings for translating fetch-pack: use a common function for verbose printing fetch-pack: use skip_prefix() instead of starts_with() upload-pack: move rev-list code out of check_non_tip() upload-pack: make check_non_tip() clean things up on error upload-pack: tighten number parsing at "deepen" lines ...
2016-08-15clone: implement optional referencesLibravatar Stefan Beller1-1/+4
In a later patch we want to try to create alternates for submodules, but they might not exist in the referenced superproject. So add a way to skip the non existing references and report them. Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-07-06Merge branch 'sb/clone-shallow-passthru'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-3/+2
Fix an unintended regression in v2.9 that breaks "clone --depth" that recurses down to submodules by forcing the submodules to also be cloned shallowly, which many server instances that host upstream of the submodules are not prepared for. * sb/clone-shallow-passthru: clone: do not let --depth imply --shallow-submodules
2016-06-20clone: do not let --depth imply --shallow-submodulesLibravatar Junio C Hamano1-3/+2
In v2.9.0, we prematurely flipped the default to force cloning submodules shallowly, when the superproject is getting cloned shallowly. This is likely to fail when the upstream repositories submodules are cloned from a repository that is not prepared to serve histories that ends at a commit that is not at the tip of a branch, and we know the world is not yet ready. Use a safer default to clone the submodules fully, unless the user tells us that she knows that the upstream repository of the submodules are willing to cooperate with "--shallow-submodules" option. Noticed-by: Vadim Eisenberg <VADIME@il.ibm.com> Helped-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Helped-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-06-13clone: define shallow clone boundary with --shallow-excludeLibravatar Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy1-0/+5
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-06-13clone: define shallow clone boundary based on time with --shallow-sinceLibravatar Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy1-0/+3
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-05-06Merge branch 'sb/clone-shallow-passthru'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-3/+8
"git clone" learned "--shallow-submodules" option. * sb/clone-shallow-passthru: clone: add `--shallow-submodules` flag
2016-04-26clone: add `--shallow-submodules` flagLibravatar Stefan Beller1-3/+10
When creating a shallow clone of a repository with submodules, the depth argument does not influence the submodules, i.e. the submodules are done as non-shallow clones. It is unclear what the best default is for the depth of submodules of a shallow clone, so we need to have the possibility to do all kinds of combinations: * shallow super project with shallow submodules e.g. build bots starting always from scratch. They want to transmit the least amount of network data as well as using the least amount of space on their hard drive. * shallow super project with unshallow submodules e.g. The superproject is just there to track a collection of repositories and it is not important to have the relationship between the repositories intact. However the history of the individual submodules matter. * unshallow super project with shallow submodules e.g. The superproject is the actual project and the submodule is a library which is rarely touched. The new switch to select submodules to be shallow or unshallow supports all of these three cases. It is easy to transition from the first to the second case by just unshallowing the submodules (`git submodule foreach git fetch --unshallow`), but it is not possible to transition from the second to the first case (as we would have already transmitted the non shallow over the network). That is why we want to make the first case the default in case of a shallow super project. This leads to the inconvenience in the second case with the shallow super project and unshallow submodules, as you need to pass `--no-shallow-submodules`. Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-04-06Merge branch 'sb/submodule-parallel-update'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-1/+5
A major part of "git submodule update" has been ported to C to take advantage of the recently added framework to run download tasks in parallel. * sb/submodule-parallel-update: clone: allow an explicit argument for parallel submodule clones submodule update: expose parallelism to the user submodule helper: remove double 'fatal: ' prefix git submodule update: have a dedicated helper for cloning run_processes_parallel: rename parameters for the callbacks run_processes_parallel: treat output of children as byte array submodule update: direct error message to stderr fetching submodules: respect `submodule.fetchJobs` config option submodule-config: drop check against NULL submodule-config: keep update strategy around
2016-03-01clone: allow an explicit argument for parallel submodule clonesLibravatar Stefan Beller1-1/+5
Just pass it along to "git submodule update", which may pick reasonable defaults if you don't specify an explicit number. Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-02-17Merge branch 'jk/drop-rsync-transport'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-2/+1
It turns out "git clone" over rsync transport has been broken when the source repository has packed references for a long time, and nobody noticed nor complained about it. * jk/drop-rsync-transport: transport: drop support for git-over-rsync
2016-02-01transport: drop support for git-over-rsyncLibravatar Jeff King1-2/+1
The git-over-rsync protocol is inefficient and broken, and has been for a long time. It transfers way more objects than it needs (grabbing all of the remote's "objects/", regardless of which objects we need). It does its own ad-hoc parsing of loose and packed refs from the remote, but doesn't properly override packed refs with loose ones, leading to garbage results (e.g., expecting the other side to have an object pointed to by a stale packed-refs entry, or complaining that the other side has two copies of the refs[1]). This latter breakage means that nobody could have successfully pulled from a moderately active repository since cd547b4 (fetch/push: readd rsync support, 2007-10-01). We never made an official deprecation notice in the release notes for git's rsync protocol, but the tutorial has marked it as such since 914328a (Update tutorial., 2005-08-30). And on the mailing list as far back as Oct 2005, we can find Junio mentioning it as having "been deprecated for quite some time."[2,3,4]. So it was old news then; cogito had deprecated the transport in July of 2005[5] (though it did come back briefly when Linus broke git-http-pull!). Of course some people professed their love of rsync through 2006, but Linus clarified in his usual gentle manner[6]: > Thanks! This is why I still use rsync, even though > everybody and their mother tells me "Linus says rsync is > deprecated." No. You're using rsync because you're actively doing something _wrong_. The deprecation sentiment was reinforced in 2008, with a mention that cloning via rsync is broken (with no fix)[7]. Even the commit porting rsync over to C from shell (cd547b4) lists it as deprecated! So between the 10 years of informal warnings, and the fact that it has been severely broken since 2007, it's probably safe to simply remove it without further deprecation warnings. [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/285101 [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/10093 [3] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/17734 [4] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/18911 [5] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/5617 [6] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/19354 [7] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/103635 Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-01-20Merge branch 'ss/clone-depth-single-doc'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-5/+4
Documentation for "git fetch --depth" has been updated for clarity. * ss/clone-depth-single-doc: docs: clarify that --depth for git-fetch works with newly initialized repos docs: say "commits" in the --depth option wording for git-clone docs: clarify that passing --depth to git-clone implies --single-branch
2016-01-08docs: say "commits" in the --depth option wording for git-cloneLibravatar Sebastian Schuberth1-1/+1
It is not wrong to talk about "revisions" here, but in this context revisions are always commits, and that is how we already name it in the git-fetch docs. So align the docs by always referring to "commits". Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2016-01-07docs: clarify that passing --depth to git-clone implies --single-branchLibravatar Sebastian Schuberth1-5/+4
It is confusing to document how --depth behaves as part of the --single-branch docs. Better move that part to the --depth docs, saying that it implies --single-branch by default. Signed-off-by: Sebastian Schuberth <sschuberth@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2015-10-22clone: allow "--dissociate" without referenceLibravatar Alex Riesen1-2/+7
The "--reference" option is not the only way to provide a repository to borrow objects from. A repository that borrows from another repository can be cloned with "clone --local" and the resulting repository will borrow from the same repository, which the user may want to "--dissociate" from. Signed-off-by: Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-10-15clone: --dissociate option to mark that reference is only temporaryLibravatar Junio C Hamano1-2/+9
While use of the --reference option to borrow objects from an existing local repository of the same project is an effective way to reduce traffic when cloning a project over the network, it makes the resulting "borrowing" repository dependent on the "borrowed" repository. After running git clone --reference=P $URL Q the resulting repository Q will be broken if the borrowed repository P disappears. The way to allow the borrowed repository to be removed is to repack the borrowing repository (i.e. run "git repack -a -d" in Q); while power users may know it very well, it is not easily discoverable. Teach a new "--dissociate" option to "git clone" to run this repacking for the user. Helped-by: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-02-11docs/git-clone: clarify use of --no-hardlinks optionLibravatar Albert L. Lash, IV1-7/+4
Current text claims optimization, implying the use of hardlinks, when this option ratchets down the level of efficiency. This change explains the difference made by using this option, namely copying instead of hardlinking, and why it may be useful. Signed-off-by: Albert L. Lash, IV <alash3@bloomberg.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2014-02-07Merge branch 'ow/manpages-typofix'Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-1/+1
Various typofixes, all looked correct. * ow/manpages-typofix: Documentation: fix typos in man pages
2014-02-05Documentation: fix typos in man pagesLibravatar Øystein Walle1-1/+1
Signed-off-by: Øystein Walle <oystwa@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-12-10git-clone.txt: remove shallow clone limitationsLibravatar Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy1-6/+1
Now that git supports data transfer from or to a shallow clone, these limitations are not true anymore. Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-07-15Revert "git-clone.txt: remove the restriction on pushing from a shallow clone"Libravatar Junio C Hamano1-7/+5
This reverts commit dacd2bcc414e0b7aac36aaa400da0a743c4741cc. "It fails reliably without corrupting the receiving repository when it should fail" may be better than the situation before the receiving end was hardened recently, but the fact that sometimes the push does not go through still remains. It is better to advice the users that they cannot push from a shallow repository as a limitation before they decide to use (or not to use) a shallow clone. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-07-12git-clone.txt: remove the restriction on pushing from a shallow cloneLibravatar Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy1-5/+7
The document says one cannot push from a shallow clone. But that is not true (maybe it was at some point in the past). The client does not stop such a push nor does it give any indication to the receiver that this is a shallow push. If the receiver accepts it, it's in. Since 52fed6e (receive-pack: check connectivity before concluding "git push" - 2011-09-02), receive-pack is prepared to deal with broken push, a shallow push can't cause any corruption. Update the document to reflect that. Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-06-22Documentation: Update 'linux-2.6.git' -> 'linux.git'Libravatar W. Trevor King1-2/+2
The 3.x tree has been out for a while now. The -2.6 repository name survived the initial release [1], but kernel.org now only lists 'linux.git' (for aegl as well as torvalds) [2]. [1]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1147422 On 2011-05-30 01:47:57 GMT, Linus Torvalds wrote: > ... yes, that means that my git tree is still called > "linux-2.6.git" on kernel.org. [2]: http://git.kernel.org/cgit/ Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-06-22doc/clone: Pick more compelling paths for the --reference exampleLibravatar W. Trevor King1-4/+4
There may be times when using one of your local repositories as a reference for a new clone make sense, but the implied version-bump in the old example isn't one of them. I think a more intuitive example is multi-user system with a central reference clone, and the new paths hint at this use case. Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-06-22doc/clone: Remove the '--bare -l -s' exampleLibravatar W. Trevor King1-7/+0
There are other examples in git-clone.txt demonstrating both '--bare' and '-l -s'. Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-05-17documentation: trivial style cleanupsLibravatar Felipe Contreras1-2/+2
White-spaces, missing braces, standardize --[no-]foo. Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-02-01Documentation: the name of the system is 'Git', not 'git'Libravatar Thomas Ackermann1-7/+7
Signed-off-by: Thomas Ackermann <th.acker@arcor.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2013-02-01Documentation: avoid poor-man's small caps GITLibravatar Thomas Ackermann1-1/+1
In the earlier days, we used to spell the name of the system as GIT, to simulate as if it were typeset with capital G and IT in small caps. Later we stopped doing so at around 1.6.5 days. Let's stop doing so throughout the documentation. The name to refer to the whole system (and the concept it embodies) is "Git"; the command end-users type is "git". And document this in the coding guideline. Signed-off-by: Thomas Ackermann <th.acker@arcor.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2012-10-25Documentation: remote tracking branch -> remote-tracking branchLibravatar Matthieu Moy1-2/+2
This change was already done by 0e615b252f3 (Matthieu Moy, Tue Nov 2 2010, Replace "remote tracking" with "remote-tracking"), but new instances of remote tracking (without dash) were introduced in the meantime. Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
2012-10-08Merge branch 'rt/maint-clone-single' into maintLibravatar Junio C Hamano1-4/+11
A repository created with "git clone --single" had its fetch refspecs set up just like a clone without "--single", leading the subsequent "git fetch" to slurp all the other branches, defeating the whole point of specifying "only this branch". * rt/maint-clone-single: clone --single: limit the fetch refspec to fetched branch
2012-09-20clone --single: limit the fetch refspec to fetched branchLibravatar Ralf Thielow1-4/+11
After running "git clone --single", the resulting repository has the usual default "+refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*" wildcard fetch refspec installed, which means that a subsequent "git fetch" will end up grabbing all the other branches. Update the fetch refspec to cover only the singly cloned ref instead to correct this. That means: If "--single" is used without "--branch" or "--mirror", the fetch refspec covers the branch on which remote's HEAD points to. If "--single" is used with "--branch", it'll cover only the branch specified in the "--branch" option. If "--single" is combined with "--mirror", then it'll cover all refs of the cloned repository. If "--single" is used with "--branch" that specifies a tag, then it'll cover only the ref for this tag. Signed-off-by: Ralf Thielow <ralf.thielow@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2012-05-30clone: allow --no-local to turn off local optimizationsLibravatar Jeff King1-1/+3
This is basically the same as using "file://", but is a little less subtle for the end user. It also allows relative paths to be specified. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2012-05-30docs/clone: mention that --local may be ignoredLibravatar Jeff King1-7/+10
The --local flag is not "treat this like a local repository", but rather "if we are local, turn on optimizations". Therefore it does nothing in the case of: git clone --local file:///path/to/repo Let's make that more clear in the documentation. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>