Re: Document clone of clone loosing branches?

[Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>]

Vaclav Hanzl <hanzl@noel.feld.cvut.cz> writes:

> I wander whether man git-clone is correct when it says "creates
> remote-tracking branches for each branch in the cloned repository".
> 
> IMHO remote-tracking branches in the original repository _are_
> branches and they are _not_ cloned (when using git-clone with no
> options) - maybe this is worth noting very explicitly?
[...]

The idea is for git-clone to clone (by default) _your_ work, not sb
else work.  Think about two repositories, fetching from each other:
you don't want for branches to proliferate like mad, remote of remote,
then remote of remote of remote, and ad infinitum.

Besides there is I think implicit assumption that public repositories
one might want to clone are _bare_ repositories, 1:1 or mirror
refspecs, which simply do not contain remote tracking branches.

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland
ShadeHawk on #git