Home / server / Questions / 362369
Accepted
pjmorse
Asked: 2012-02-22 12:21:45 +0800 CST

Moving a git server: should I make repos bare?

  • 772

I'm pulling a bunch of company git repositories from an older host to our company git server. I started by just git clone-ing the old repos into the repositories directory on the new server. Soon we're going to point DNS for the old host to the new server.

My question is this: should I make the new repositories bare repos before this switch happens, or can they function as they are (normal, non-bare repositories with .git/ directories)? I'm guessing the former, but I'd like someone who actually knows to confirm this.

git

2 Answers

  1. You don't have to make them bare repositories, but I would strongly consider doing so for the sake of cosmetic consistency (git "servers" have a bare repo, git "clients" have a checkout with a .git directory).

    If nothing else, it's less to back up.

    • 3
  2. Best Answer

    Like voretaq7 said. Yes, it is highly advisable.

    In GitMagic ch3 there is a good explanation of why you want to use a bare repo.

    A bare repository is so named because it has no working directory; it only contains files that are normally hidden away in the .git subdirectory. In other words, it maintains the history of a project, and never holds a snapshot of any given version.

    A bare repository plays a role similar to that of the main server in a centralized version control system: the home of your project. Developers clone your project from it, and push the latest official changes to it. Typically it resides on a server that does little else but disseminate data. Development occurs in the clones, so the home repository can do without a working directory.

    To make the transition easy use:

    git clone --mirror

    There is question on StackOverflow that discusses the the difference between git clone --mirror and git clone --bare.

    • 3