1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/git/git.git synced 2024-11-09 02:33:11 +01:00
git/git-clone.sh

527 lines
12 KiB
Bash
Raw Normal View History

#!/bin/sh
#
# Copyright (c) 2005, Linus Torvalds
# Copyright (c) 2005, Junio C Hamano
#
# Clone a repository into a different directory that does not yet exist.
# See git-sh-setup why.
unset CDPATH
OPTIONS_SPEC="\
git-clone [options] [--] <repo> [<dir>]
--
n,no-checkout don't create a checkout
bare create a bare repository
naked create a bare repository
l,local to clone from a local repository
no-hardlinks don't use local hardlinks, always copy
s,shared setup as a shared repository
template= path to the template directory
q,quiet be quiet
reference= reference repository
o,origin= use <name> instead of 'origin' to track upstream
u,upload-pack= path to git-upload-pack on the remote
depth= create a shallow clone of that depth
use-separate-remote compatibility, do not use
no-separate-remote compatibility, do not use"
die() {
echo >&2 "$@"
exit 1
}
usage() {
exec "$0" -h
}
eval "$(echo "$OPTIONS_SPEC" | git rev-parse --parseopt -- "$@" || echo exit $?)"
get_repo_base() {
(
cd "`/bin/pwd`" &&
cd "$1" || cd "$1.git" &&
{
cd .git
pwd
}
) 2>/dev/null
}
if [ -n "$GIT_SSL_NO_VERIFY" -o \
"`git config --bool http.sslVerify`" = false ]; then
curl_extra_args="-k"
fi
http_fetch () {
# $1 = Remote, $2 = Local
curl -nsfL $curl_extra_args "$1" >"$2"
curl_exit_status=$?
case $curl_exit_status in
126|127) exit ;;
*) return $curl_exit_status ;;
esac
}
clone_dumb_http () {
# $1 - remote, $2 - local
cd "$2" &&
clone_tmp="$GIT_DIR/clone-tmp" &&
mkdir -p "$clone_tmp" || exit 1
if [ -n "$GIT_CURL_FTP_NO_EPSV" -o \
"`git config --bool http.noEPSV`" = true ]; then
curl_extra_args="${curl_extra_args} --disable-epsv"
fi
http_fetch "$1/info/refs" "$clone_tmp/refs" ||
die "Cannot get remote repository information.
Perhaps git-update-server-info needs to be run there?"
test "z$quiet" = z && v=-v || v=
while read sha1 refname
do
name=`expr "z$refname" : 'zrefs/\(.*\)'` &&
case "$name" in
*^*) continue;;
esac
case "$bare,$name" in
yes,* | ,heads/* | ,tags/*) ;;
*) continue ;;
esac
if test -n "$use_separate_remote" &&
branch_name=`expr "z$name" : 'zheads/\(.*\)'`
then
tname="remotes/$origin/$branch_name"
else
tname=$name
fi
git-http-fetch $v -a -w "$tname" "$sha1" "$1" || exit 1
done <"$clone_tmp/refs"
rm -fr "$clone_tmp"
git-clone: fix handling of upsteram whose HEAD does not point at master. When cloning from a remote repository that has master, main, and origin branches _and_ with the HEAD pointing at main branch, we did quite confused things during clone. So this cleans things up. The behaviour is a bit different between separate remotes/ layout and the mixed branches layout. The newer layout with $GIT_DIR/refs/remotes/$origin/, things are simpler and more transparent: - remote branches are copied to refs/remotes/$origin/. - HEAD points at the branch with the same name as the remote HEAD points at, and starts at where the remote HEAD points at. - $GIT_DIR/remotes/$origin file is set up to fetch all remote branches, and merge the branch HEAD pointed at at the time of the cloning. Everything-in-refs/heads layout was the more confused one, but cleaned up like this: - remote branches are copied to refs/heads, but the branch "$origin" is not copied, instead a copy of the branch the remote HEAD points at is created there. - HEAD points at the branch with the same name as the remote HEAD points at, and starts at where the remote HEAD points at. - $GIT_DIR/remotes/$origin file is set up to fetch all remote branches except "$origin", and merge the branch HEAD pointed at at the time of the cloning. With this, the remote has master, main and origin, and its HEAD points at main, you could: git clone $URL --origin upstream to use refs/heads/upstream as the tracking branch for remote "main", and your primary working branch will also be "main". "master" and "origin" are used to track the corresponding remote branches and with this setup they do not have any special meaning. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-04-03 01:25:01 +02:00
http_fetch "$1/HEAD" "$GIT_DIR/REMOTE_HEAD" ||
rm -f "$GIT_DIR/REMOTE_HEAD"
if test -f "$GIT_DIR/REMOTE_HEAD"; then
head_sha1=`cat "$GIT_DIR/REMOTE_HEAD"`
case "$head_sha1" in
'ref: refs/'*)
;;
*)
git-http-fetch $v -a "$head_sha1" "$1" ||
rm -f "$GIT_DIR/REMOTE_HEAD"
;;
esac
fi
}
quiet=
local=no
git-clone: aggressively optimize local clone behaviour. This changes the behaviour of cloning from a repository on the local machine, by defaulting to "-l" (use hardlinks to share files under .git/objects) and making "-l" a no-op. A new option, --no-hardlinks, is also added to cause file-level copy of files under .git/objects while still avoiding the normal "pack to pipe, then receive and index pack" network transfer overhead. The old behaviour of local cloning without -l nor -s is availble by specifying the source repository with the newly introduced file:///path/to/repo.git/ syntax (i.e. "same as network" cloning). * With --no-hardlinks (i.e. have all .git/objects/ copied via cpio) would not catch the source repository corruption, and also risks corrupted recipient repository if an alpha-particle hits memory cell while indexing and resolving deltas. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * same-as-network is expensive, but it would catch the breakage of the source repository. It still risks corrupted recipient repository due to hardware failure. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * The new default on the same filesystem, as long as the source repository is healthy, it is very likely that the recipient would be, too. Also it is very cheap. You do not get any back-up benefit, though. None of the method is resilient against the source repository corruption, so let's discount that from the comparison. Then the difference with and without --no-hardlinks matters primarily if you value the back-up benefit or not. If you want to use the cloned repository as a back-up, then it is cheaper to do a clone with --no-hardlinks and two git-fsck (source before clone, recipient after clone) than same-as-network clone, especially as you are likely to do a git-fsck on the recipient if you are so paranoid anyway. Which leads me to believe that being able to use file:/// is probably a good idea, if only for testability, but probably of little practical value. We default to hardlinked clone for everyday use, and paranoids can use --no-hardlinks as a way to make a back-up. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-08-02 08:42:36 +02:00
use_local_hardlink=yes
local_shared=no
unset template
no_checkout=
upload_pack=
bare=
reference=
origin=
origin_override=
use_separate_remote=t
depth=
no_progress=
local_explicitly_asked_for=
test -t 1 || no_progress=--no-progress
while test $# != 0
do
case "$1" in
-n|--no-checkout)
no_checkout=yes ;;
--naked|--bare)
bare=yes ;;
-l|--local)
local_explicitly_asked_for=yes
use_local_hardlink=yes
;;
--no-hardlinks)
use_local_hardlink=no ;;
-s|--shared)
local_shared=yes ;;
--template)
shift; template="--template=$1" ;;
-q|--quiet)
quiet=-q ;;
--use-separate-remote|--no-separate-remote)
die "clones are always made with separate-remote layout" ;;
--reference)
shift; reference="$1" ;;
-o|--origin)
shift;
case "$1" in
'')
usage ;;
*/*)
die "'$1' is not suitable for an origin name"
esac
git check-ref-format "heads/$1" ||
die "'$1' is not suitable for a branch name"
test -z "$origin_override" ||
die "Do not give more than one --origin options."
origin_override=yes
origin="$1"
;;
-u|--upload-pack)
shift
upload_pack="--upload-pack=$1" ;;
--depth)
shift
depth="--depth=$1" ;;
--)
shift
break ;;
*)
usage ;;
esac
shift
done
repo="$1"
test -n "$repo" ||
die 'you must specify a repository to clone.'
# --bare implies --no-checkout and --no-separate-remote
if test yes = "$bare"
then
if test yes = "$origin_override"
then
die '--bare and --origin $origin options are incompatible.'
fi
no_checkout=yes
use_separate_remote=
fi
if test -z "$origin"
then
origin=origin
fi
# Turn the source into an absolute path if
# it is local
if base=$(get_repo_base "$repo"); then
repo="$base"
if test -z "$depth"
then
local=yes
fi
elif test -f "$repo"
then
case "$repo" in /*) ;; *) repo="$PWD/$repo" ;; esac
fi
# Decide the directory name of the new repository
if test -n "$2"
then
dir="$2"
test $# = 2 || die "excess parameter to git-clone"
else
# Derive one from the repository name
# Try using "humanish" part of source repo if user didn't specify one
if test -f "$repo"
then
# Cloning from a bundle
dir=$(echo "$repo" | sed -e 's|/*\.bundle$||' -e 's|.*/||g')
else
dir=$(echo "$repo" |
sed -e 's|/$||' -e 's|:*/*\.git$||' -e 's|.*[/:]||g')
fi
fi
[ -e "$dir" ] && die "destination directory '$dir' already exists."
[ yes = "$bare" ] && unset GIT_WORK_TREE
[ -n "$GIT_WORK_TREE" ] && [ -e "$GIT_WORK_TREE" ] &&
die "working tree '$GIT_WORK_TREE' already exists."
D=
W=
cleanup() {
err=$?
test -z "$D" && rm -rf "$dir"
test -z "$W" && test -n "$GIT_WORK_TREE" && rm -rf "$GIT_WORK_TREE"
cd ..
test -n "$D" && rm -rf "$D"
test -n "$W" && rm -rf "$W"
exit $err
}
trap cleanup 0
mkdir -p "$dir" && D=$(cd "$dir" && pwd) || usage
test -n "$GIT_WORK_TREE" && mkdir -p "$GIT_WORK_TREE" &&
W=$(cd "$GIT_WORK_TREE" && pwd) && GIT_WORK_TREE="$W" && export GIT_WORK_TREE
if test yes = "$bare" || test -n "$GIT_WORK_TREE"; then
GIT_DIR="$D"
else
GIT_DIR="$D/.git"
fi &&
export GIT_DIR &&
GIT_CONFIG="$GIT_DIR/config" git-init $quiet ${template+"$template"} || usage
if test -n "$bare"
then
GIT_CONFIG="$GIT_DIR/config" git config core.bare true
fi
if test -n "$reference"
then
ref_git=
if test -d "$reference"
then
if test -d "$reference/.git/objects"
then
ref_git="$reference/.git"
elif test -d "$reference/objects"
then
ref_git="$reference"
fi
fi
if test -n "$ref_git"
then
ref_git=$(cd "$ref_git" && pwd)
echo "$ref_git/objects" >"$GIT_DIR/objects/info/alternates"
(
GIT_DIR="$ref_git" git for-each-ref \
--format='%(objectname) %(*objectname)'
) |
while read a b
do
test -z "$a" ||
git update-ref "refs/reference-tmp/$a" "$a"
test -z "$b" ||
git update-ref "refs/reference-tmp/$b" "$b"
done
else
die "reference repository '$reference' is not a local directory."
fi
fi
rm -f "$GIT_DIR/CLONE_HEAD"
# We do local magic only when the user tells us to.
git-clone: aggressively optimize local clone behaviour. This changes the behaviour of cloning from a repository on the local machine, by defaulting to "-l" (use hardlinks to share files under .git/objects) and making "-l" a no-op. A new option, --no-hardlinks, is also added to cause file-level copy of files under .git/objects while still avoiding the normal "pack to pipe, then receive and index pack" network transfer overhead. The old behaviour of local cloning without -l nor -s is availble by specifying the source repository with the newly introduced file:///path/to/repo.git/ syntax (i.e. "same as network" cloning). * With --no-hardlinks (i.e. have all .git/objects/ copied via cpio) would not catch the source repository corruption, and also risks corrupted recipient repository if an alpha-particle hits memory cell while indexing and resolving deltas. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * same-as-network is expensive, but it would catch the breakage of the source repository. It still risks corrupted recipient repository due to hardware failure. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * The new default on the same filesystem, as long as the source repository is healthy, it is very likely that the recipient would be, too. Also it is very cheap. You do not get any back-up benefit, though. None of the method is resilient against the source repository corruption, so let's discount that from the comparison. Then the difference with and without --no-hardlinks matters primarily if you value the back-up benefit or not. If you want to use the cloned repository as a back-up, then it is cheaper to do a clone with --no-hardlinks and two git-fsck (source before clone, recipient after clone) than same-as-network clone, especially as you are likely to do a git-fsck on the recipient if you are so paranoid anyway. Which leads me to believe that being able to use file:/// is probably a good idea, if only for testability, but probably of little practical value. We default to hardlinked clone for everyday use, and paranoids can use --no-hardlinks as a way to make a back-up. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-08-02 08:42:36 +02:00
case "$local" in
yes)
( cd "$repo/objects" ) ||
git-clone: aggressively optimize local clone behaviour. This changes the behaviour of cloning from a repository on the local machine, by defaulting to "-l" (use hardlinks to share files under .git/objects) and making "-l" a no-op. A new option, --no-hardlinks, is also added to cause file-level copy of files under .git/objects while still avoiding the normal "pack to pipe, then receive and index pack" network transfer overhead. The old behaviour of local cloning without -l nor -s is availble by specifying the source repository with the newly introduced file:///path/to/repo.git/ syntax (i.e. "same as network" cloning). * With --no-hardlinks (i.e. have all .git/objects/ copied via cpio) would not catch the source repository corruption, and also risks corrupted recipient repository if an alpha-particle hits memory cell while indexing and resolving deltas. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * same-as-network is expensive, but it would catch the breakage of the source repository. It still risks corrupted recipient repository due to hardware failure. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * The new default on the same filesystem, as long as the source repository is healthy, it is very likely that the recipient would be, too. Also it is very cheap. You do not get any back-up benefit, though. None of the method is resilient against the source repository corruption, so let's discount that from the comparison. Then the difference with and without --no-hardlinks matters primarily if you value the back-up benefit or not. If you want to use the cloned repository as a back-up, then it is cheaper to do a clone with --no-hardlinks and two git-fsck (source before clone, recipient after clone) than same-as-network clone, especially as you are likely to do a git-fsck on the recipient if you are so paranoid anyway. Which leads me to believe that being able to use file:/// is probably a good idea, if only for testability, but probably of little practical value. We default to hardlinked clone for everyday use, and paranoids can use --no-hardlinks as a way to make a back-up. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-08-02 08:42:36 +02:00
die "cannot chdir to local '$repo/objects'."
git-clone: aggressively optimize local clone behaviour. This changes the behaviour of cloning from a repository on the local machine, by defaulting to "-l" (use hardlinks to share files under .git/objects) and making "-l" a no-op. A new option, --no-hardlinks, is also added to cause file-level copy of files under .git/objects while still avoiding the normal "pack to pipe, then receive and index pack" network transfer overhead. The old behaviour of local cloning without -l nor -s is availble by specifying the source repository with the newly introduced file:///path/to/repo.git/ syntax (i.e. "same as network" cloning). * With --no-hardlinks (i.e. have all .git/objects/ copied via cpio) would not catch the source repository corruption, and also risks corrupted recipient repository if an alpha-particle hits memory cell while indexing and resolving deltas. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * same-as-network is expensive, but it would catch the breakage of the source repository. It still risks corrupted recipient repository due to hardware failure. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * The new default on the same filesystem, as long as the source repository is healthy, it is very likely that the recipient would be, too. Also it is very cheap. You do not get any back-up benefit, though. None of the method is resilient against the source repository corruption, so let's discount that from the comparison. Then the difference with and without --no-hardlinks matters primarily if you value the back-up benefit or not. If you want to use the cloned repository as a back-up, then it is cheaper to do a clone with --no-hardlinks and two git-fsck (source before clone, recipient after clone) than same-as-network clone, especially as you are likely to do a git-fsck on the recipient if you are so paranoid anyway. Which leads me to believe that being able to use file:/// is probably a good idea, if only for testability, but probably of little practical value. We default to hardlinked clone for everyday use, and paranoids can use --no-hardlinks as a way to make a back-up. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-08-02 08:42:36 +02:00
if test "$local_shared" = yes
then
mkdir -p "$GIT_DIR/objects/info"
echo "$repo/objects" >>"$GIT_DIR/objects/info/alternates"
else
cpio_quiet_flag=""
cpio --help 2>&1 | grep -- --quiet >/dev/null && \
cpio_quiet_flag=--quiet
git-clone: aggressively optimize local clone behaviour. This changes the behaviour of cloning from a repository on the local machine, by defaulting to "-l" (use hardlinks to share files under .git/objects) and making "-l" a no-op. A new option, --no-hardlinks, is also added to cause file-level copy of files under .git/objects while still avoiding the normal "pack to pipe, then receive and index pack" network transfer overhead. The old behaviour of local cloning without -l nor -s is availble by specifying the source repository with the newly introduced file:///path/to/repo.git/ syntax (i.e. "same as network" cloning). * With --no-hardlinks (i.e. have all .git/objects/ copied via cpio) would not catch the source repository corruption, and also risks corrupted recipient repository if an alpha-particle hits memory cell while indexing and resolving deltas. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * same-as-network is expensive, but it would catch the breakage of the source repository. It still risks corrupted recipient repository due to hardware failure. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * The new default on the same filesystem, as long as the source repository is healthy, it is very likely that the recipient would be, too. Also it is very cheap. You do not get any back-up benefit, though. None of the method is resilient against the source repository corruption, so let's discount that from the comparison. Then the difference with and without --no-hardlinks matters primarily if you value the back-up benefit or not. If you want to use the cloned repository as a back-up, then it is cheaper to do a clone with --no-hardlinks and two git-fsck (source before clone, recipient after clone) than same-as-network clone, especially as you are likely to do a git-fsck on the recipient if you are so paranoid anyway. Which leads me to believe that being able to use file:/// is probably a good idea, if only for testability, but probably of little practical value. We default to hardlinked clone for everyday use, and paranoids can use --no-hardlinks as a way to make a back-up. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-08-02 08:42:36 +02:00
l= &&
if test "$use_local_hardlink" = yes
then
# See if we can hardlink and drop "l" if not.
sample_file=$(cd "$repo" && \
find objects -type f -print | sed -e 1q)
# objects directory should not be empty because
# we are cloning!
test -f "$repo/$sample_file" ||
die "fatal: cannot clone empty repository"
git-clone: aggressively optimize local clone behaviour. This changes the behaviour of cloning from a repository on the local machine, by defaulting to "-l" (use hardlinks to share files under .git/objects) and making "-l" a no-op. A new option, --no-hardlinks, is also added to cause file-level copy of files under .git/objects while still avoiding the normal "pack to pipe, then receive and index pack" network transfer overhead. The old behaviour of local cloning without -l nor -s is availble by specifying the source repository with the newly introduced file:///path/to/repo.git/ syntax (i.e. "same as network" cloning). * With --no-hardlinks (i.e. have all .git/objects/ copied via cpio) would not catch the source repository corruption, and also risks corrupted recipient repository if an alpha-particle hits memory cell while indexing and resolving deltas. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * same-as-network is expensive, but it would catch the breakage of the source repository. It still risks corrupted recipient repository due to hardware failure. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * The new default on the same filesystem, as long as the source repository is healthy, it is very likely that the recipient would be, too. Also it is very cheap. You do not get any back-up benefit, though. None of the method is resilient against the source repository corruption, so let's discount that from the comparison. Then the difference with and without --no-hardlinks matters primarily if you value the back-up benefit or not. If you want to use the cloned repository as a back-up, then it is cheaper to do a clone with --no-hardlinks and two git-fsck (source before clone, recipient after clone) than same-as-network clone, especially as you are likely to do a git-fsck on the recipient if you are so paranoid anyway. Which leads me to believe that being able to use file:/// is probably a good idea, if only for testability, but probably of little practical value. We default to hardlinked clone for everyday use, and paranoids can use --no-hardlinks as a way to make a back-up. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-08-02 08:42:36 +02:00
if ln "$repo/$sample_file" "$GIT_DIR/objects/sample" 2>/dev/null
then
rm -f "$GIT_DIR/objects/sample"
l=l
elif test -n "$local_explicitly_asked_for"
then
git-clone: aggressively optimize local clone behaviour. This changes the behaviour of cloning from a repository on the local machine, by defaulting to "-l" (use hardlinks to share files under .git/objects) and making "-l" a no-op. A new option, --no-hardlinks, is also added to cause file-level copy of files under .git/objects while still avoiding the normal "pack to pipe, then receive and index pack" network transfer overhead. The old behaviour of local cloning without -l nor -s is availble by specifying the source repository with the newly introduced file:///path/to/repo.git/ syntax (i.e. "same as network" cloning). * With --no-hardlinks (i.e. have all .git/objects/ copied via cpio) would not catch the source repository corruption, and also risks corrupted recipient repository if an alpha-particle hits memory cell while indexing and resolving deltas. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * same-as-network is expensive, but it would catch the breakage of the source repository. It still risks corrupted recipient repository due to hardware failure. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * The new default on the same filesystem, as long as the source repository is healthy, it is very likely that the recipient would be, too. Also it is very cheap. You do not get any back-up benefit, though. None of the method is resilient against the source repository corruption, so let's discount that from the comparison. Then the difference with and without --no-hardlinks matters primarily if you value the back-up benefit or not. If you want to use the cloned repository as a back-up, then it is cheaper to do a clone with --no-hardlinks and two git-fsck (source before clone, recipient after clone) than same-as-network clone, especially as you are likely to do a git-fsck on the recipient if you are so paranoid anyway. Which leads me to believe that being able to use file:/// is probably a good idea, if only for testability, but probably of little practical value. We default to hardlinked clone for everyday use, and paranoids can use --no-hardlinks as a way to make a back-up. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-08-02 08:42:36 +02:00
echo >&2 "Warning: -l asked but cannot hardlink to $repo"
fi
fi &&
cd "$repo" &&
# Create dirs using umask and permissions and destination
find objects -type d -print | (cd "$GIT_DIR" && xargs mkdir -p) &&
# Copy existing 0444 permissions on content
find objects ! -type d -print | cpio $cpio_quiet_flag -pumd$l "$GIT_DIR/" || \
exit 1
git-clone: aggressively optimize local clone behaviour. This changes the behaviour of cloning from a repository on the local machine, by defaulting to "-l" (use hardlinks to share files under .git/objects) and making "-l" a no-op. A new option, --no-hardlinks, is also added to cause file-level copy of files under .git/objects while still avoiding the normal "pack to pipe, then receive and index pack" network transfer overhead. The old behaviour of local cloning without -l nor -s is availble by specifying the source repository with the newly introduced file:///path/to/repo.git/ syntax (i.e. "same as network" cloning). * With --no-hardlinks (i.e. have all .git/objects/ copied via cpio) would not catch the source repository corruption, and also risks corrupted recipient repository if an alpha-particle hits memory cell while indexing and resolving deltas. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * same-as-network is expensive, but it would catch the breakage of the source repository. It still risks corrupted recipient repository due to hardware failure. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * The new default on the same filesystem, as long as the source repository is healthy, it is very likely that the recipient would be, too. Also it is very cheap. You do not get any back-up benefit, though. None of the method is resilient against the source repository corruption, so let's discount that from the comparison. Then the difference with and without --no-hardlinks matters primarily if you value the back-up benefit or not. If you want to use the cloned repository as a back-up, then it is cheaper to do a clone with --no-hardlinks and two git-fsck (source before clone, recipient after clone) than same-as-network clone, especially as you are likely to do a git-fsck on the recipient if you are so paranoid anyway. Which leads me to believe that being able to use file:/// is probably a good idea, if only for testability, but probably of little practical value. We default to hardlinked clone for everyday use, and paranoids can use --no-hardlinks as a way to make a back-up. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-08-02 08:42:36 +02:00
fi
git-ls-remote "$repo" >"$GIT_DIR/CLONE_HEAD" || exit 1
;;
*)
case "$repo" in
rsync://*)
case "$depth" in
"") ;;
*) die "shallow over rsync not supported" ;;
esac
rsync $quiet -av --ignore-existing \
--exclude info "$repo/objects/" "$GIT_DIR/objects/" ||
exit
# Look at objects/info/alternates for rsync -- http will
# support it natively and git native ones will do it on the
# remote end. Not having that file is not a crime.
rsync -q "$repo/objects/info/alternates" \
"$GIT_DIR/TMP_ALT" 2>/dev/null ||
rm -f "$GIT_DIR/TMP_ALT"
if test -f "$GIT_DIR/TMP_ALT"
then
( cd "$D" &&
. git-parse-remote &&
resolve_alternates "$repo" <"$GIT_DIR/TMP_ALT" ) |
while read alt
do
case "$alt" in 'bad alternate: '*) die "$alt";; esac
case "$quiet" in
'') echo >&2 "Getting alternate: $alt" ;;
esac
rsync $quiet -av --ignore-existing \
--exclude info "$alt" "$GIT_DIR/objects" || exit
done
rm -f "$GIT_DIR/TMP_ALT"
fi
git-ls-remote "$repo" >"$GIT_DIR/CLONE_HEAD" || exit 1
;;
https://*|http://*|ftp://*)
case "$depth" in
"") ;;
*) die "shallow over http or ftp not supported" ;;
esac
if test -z "@@NO_CURL@@"
then
clone_dumb_http "$repo" "$D"
else
die "http transport not supported, rebuild Git with curl support"
fi
;;
*)
if [ -f "$repo" ] ; then
git bundle unbundle "$repo" > "$GIT_DIR/CLONE_HEAD" ||
die "unbundle from '$repo' failed."
else
case "$upload_pack" in
'') git-fetch-pack --all -k $quiet $depth $no_progress "$repo";;
*) git-fetch-pack --all -k \
$quiet "$upload_pack" $depth $no_progress "$repo" ;;
esac >"$GIT_DIR/CLONE_HEAD" ||
die "fetch-pack from '$repo' failed."
fi
;;
esac
;;
esac
test -d "$GIT_DIR/refs/reference-tmp" && rm -fr "$GIT_DIR/refs/reference-tmp"
if test -f "$GIT_DIR/CLONE_HEAD"
then
git-clone: fix handling of upsteram whose HEAD does not point at master. When cloning from a remote repository that has master, main, and origin branches _and_ with the HEAD pointing at main branch, we did quite confused things during clone. So this cleans things up. The behaviour is a bit different between separate remotes/ layout and the mixed branches layout. The newer layout with $GIT_DIR/refs/remotes/$origin/, things are simpler and more transparent: - remote branches are copied to refs/remotes/$origin/. - HEAD points at the branch with the same name as the remote HEAD points at, and starts at where the remote HEAD points at. - $GIT_DIR/remotes/$origin file is set up to fetch all remote branches, and merge the branch HEAD pointed at at the time of the cloning. Everything-in-refs/heads layout was the more confused one, but cleaned up like this: - remote branches are copied to refs/heads, but the branch "$origin" is not copied, instead a copy of the branch the remote HEAD points at is created there. - HEAD points at the branch with the same name as the remote HEAD points at, and starts at where the remote HEAD points at. - $GIT_DIR/remotes/$origin file is set up to fetch all remote branches except "$origin", and merge the branch HEAD pointed at at the time of the cloning. With this, the remote has master, main and origin, and its HEAD points at main, you could: git clone $URL --origin upstream to use refs/heads/upstream as the tracking branch for remote "main", and your primary working branch will also be "main". "master" and "origin" are used to track the corresponding remote branches and with this setup they do not have any special meaning. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-04-03 01:25:01 +02:00
# Read git-fetch-pack -k output and store the remote branches.
if [ -n "$use_separate_remote" ]
then
branch_top="remotes/$origin"
else
branch_top="heads"
fi
tag_top="tags"
while read sha1 name
do
case "$name" in
*'^{}')
continue ;;
HEAD)
destname="REMOTE_HEAD" ;;
refs/heads/*)
destname="refs/$branch_top/${name#refs/heads/}" ;;
refs/tags/*)
destname="refs/$tag_top/${name#refs/tags/}" ;;
*)
continue ;;
esac
git update-ref -m "clone: from $repo" "$destname" "$sha1" ""
done < "$GIT_DIR/CLONE_HEAD"
fi
if test -n "$W"; then
cd "$W" || exit
else
cd "$D" || exit
fi
if test -z "$bare"
then
# a non-bare repository is always in separate-remote layout
remote_top="refs/remotes/$origin"
head_sha1=
test ! -r "$GIT_DIR/REMOTE_HEAD" || head_sha1=`cat "$GIT_DIR/REMOTE_HEAD"`
git-clone: fix handling of upsteram whose HEAD does not point at master. When cloning from a remote repository that has master, main, and origin branches _and_ with the HEAD pointing at main branch, we did quite confused things during clone. So this cleans things up. The behaviour is a bit different between separate remotes/ layout and the mixed branches layout. The newer layout with $GIT_DIR/refs/remotes/$origin/, things are simpler and more transparent: - remote branches are copied to refs/remotes/$origin/. - HEAD points at the branch with the same name as the remote HEAD points at, and starts at where the remote HEAD points at. - $GIT_DIR/remotes/$origin file is set up to fetch all remote branches, and merge the branch HEAD pointed at at the time of the cloning. Everything-in-refs/heads layout was the more confused one, but cleaned up like this: - remote branches are copied to refs/heads, but the branch "$origin" is not copied, instead a copy of the branch the remote HEAD points at is created there. - HEAD points at the branch with the same name as the remote HEAD points at, and starts at where the remote HEAD points at. - $GIT_DIR/remotes/$origin file is set up to fetch all remote branches except "$origin", and merge the branch HEAD pointed at at the time of the cloning. With this, the remote has master, main and origin, and its HEAD points at main, you could: git clone $URL --origin upstream to use refs/heads/upstream as the tracking branch for remote "main", and your primary working branch will also be "main". "master" and "origin" are used to track the corresponding remote branches and with this setup they do not have any special meaning. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-04-03 01:25:01 +02:00
case "$head_sha1" in
'ref: refs/'*)
# Uh-oh, the remote told us (http transport done against
# new style repository with a symref HEAD).
# Ideally we should skip the guesswork but for now
# opt for minimum change.
head_sha1=`expr "z$head_sha1" : 'zref: refs/heads/\(.*\)'`
git-clone: fix handling of upsteram whose HEAD does not point at master. When cloning from a remote repository that has master, main, and origin branches _and_ with the HEAD pointing at main branch, we did quite confused things during clone. So this cleans things up. The behaviour is a bit different between separate remotes/ layout and the mixed branches layout. The newer layout with $GIT_DIR/refs/remotes/$origin/, things are simpler and more transparent: - remote branches are copied to refs/remotes/$origin/. - HEAD points at the branch with the same name as the remote HEAD points at, and starts at where the remote HEAD points at. - $GIT_DIR/remotes/$origin file is set up to fetch all remote branches, and merge the branch HEAD pointed at at the time of the cloning. Everything-in-refs/heads layout was the more confused one, but cleaned up like this: - remote branches are copied to refs/heads, but the branch "$origin" is not copied, instead a copy of the branch the remote HEAD points at is created there. - HEAD points at the branch with the same name as the remote HEAD points at, and starts at where the remote HEAD points at. - $GIT_DIR/remotes/$origin file is set up to fetch all remote branches except "$origin", and merge the branch HEAD pointed at at the time of the cloning. With this, the remote has master, main and origin, and its HEAD points at main, you could: git clone $URL --origin upstream to use refs/heads/upstream as the tracking branch for remote "main", and your primary working branch will also be "main". "master" and "origin" are used to track the corresponding remote branches and with this setup they do not have any special meaning. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-04-03 01:25:01 +02:00
head_sha1=`cat "$GIT_DIR/$remote_top/$head_sha1"`
;;
esac
git-clone: fix handling of upsteram whose HEAD does not point at master. When cloning from a remote repository that has master, main, and origin branches _and_ with the HEAD pointing at main branch, we did quite confused things during clone. So this cleans things up. The behaviour is a bit different between separate remotes/ layout and the mixed branches layout. The newer layout with $GIT_DIR/refs/remotes/$origin/, things are simpler and more transparent: - remote branches are copied to refs/remotes/$origin/. - HEAD points at the branch with the same name as the remote HEAD points at, and starts at where the remote HEAD points at. - $GIT_DIR/remotes/$origin file is set up to fetch all remote branches, and merge the branch HEAD pointed at at the time of the cloning. Everything-in-refs/heads layout was the more confused one, but cleaned up like this: - remote branches are copied to refs/heads, but the branch "$origin" is not copied, instead a copy of the branch the remote HEAD points at is created there. - HEAD points at the branch with the same name as the remote HEAD points at, and starts at where the remote HEAD points at. - $GIT_DIR/remotes/$origin file is set up to fetch all remote branches except "$origin", and merge the branch HEAD pointed at at the time of the cloning. With this, the remote has master, main and origin, and its HEAD points at main, you could: git clone $URL --origin upstream to use refs/heads/upstream as the tracking branch for remote "main", and your primary working branch will also be "main". "master" and "origin" are used to track the corresponding remote branches and with this setup they do not have any special meaning. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-04-03 01:25:01 +02:00
# The name under $remote_top the remote HEAD seems to point at.
head_points_at=$(
(
test -f "$GIT_DIR/$remote_top/master" && echo "master"
cd "$GIT_DIR/$remote_top" &&
find . -type f -print | sed -e 's/^\.\///'
) | (
done=f
while read name
do
test t = $done && continue
branch_tip=`cat "$GIT_DIR/$remote_top/$name"`
if test "$head_sha1" = "$branch_tip"
then
echo "$name"
done=t
fi
done
)
)
# Upstream URL
git config remote."$origin".url "$repo" &&
# Set up the mappings to track the remote branches.
git config remote."$origin".fetch \
"+refs/heads/*:$remote_top/*" '^$' &&
# Write out remote.$origin config, and update our "$head_points_at".
case "$head_points_at" in
?*)
# Local default branch
git symbolic-ref HEAD "refs/heads/$head_points_at" &&
# Tracking branch for the primary branch at the remote.
git update-ref HEAD "$head_sha1" &&
rm -f "refs/remotes/$origin/HEAD"
git symbolic-ref "refs/remotes/$origin/HEAD" \
"refs/remotes/$origin/$head_points_at" &&
git config branch."$head_points_at".remote "$origin" &&
git config branch."$head_points_at".merge "refs/heads/$head_points_at"
;;
'')
if test -z "$head_sha1"
then
# Source had nonexistent ref in HEAD
echo >&2 "Warning: Remote HEAD refers to nonexistent ref, unable to checkout."
no_checkout=t
else
# Source had detached HEAD pointing nowhere
git update-ref --no-deref HEAD "$head_sha1" &&
rm -f "refs/remotes/$origin/HEAD"
fi
;;
esac
case "$no_checkout" in
'')
test "z$quiet" = z -a "z$no_progress" = z && v=-v || v=
git read-tree -m -u $v HEAD HEAD
esac
fi
rm -f "$GIT_DIR/CLONE_HEAD" "$GIT_DIR/REMOTE_HEAD"
trap - 0