What's the most straightforward way to clone an empty, *bare* git repository?

I’ve just finished cruising the Google search results that contain all the email rants about how stupid it is that git can’t clone an empty repository. Some kind soul even submitted a patch. Until git is upgraded, what is the simplest, most straightforward method to clone an empty, bare git repository?

The ideal solution will support the -o option to give the remote repo a name other than origin, and it will be implementable as a simple shell script, e.g., git-clone-empty-repo.

  • “fatal: Not a git repository (or any of the parent directories)” from git status
  • Sub folder in Git project?
  • Not able to clone git repo hosted on Windows Server 2012
  • Explain clones info in Github's Traffic tab
  • How can I clone a git repository with a 32-bit machine?
  • git-update-server-info not sufficient to clone remote repo?
  • (Why I want to do this: I’ve set up a bare, empty git repo on our NetApp filer where it will be backed up, but I want to work with a clone on my local hard drive and push and pull back and forth. Other people I work with will be doing the same. I create new git repos a lot and my inability to clone an empty repo makes me crazy.)


    EDIT: VonC’s thread suggests that

    $ git-init
    $ git-remote add origin server:/pub/git/test.git
    

    is equivalent to cloning the remote repo when the repo is empty. This is not quite what I want because I always use the -o option with git clone; I name the remote repo according to what machine it is on or some other memorable criterion. (I have too many repos to keep them straight if they’re all called origin.)


    EDIT: The following answer will be marked accepted 🙂

    To clone an empty, bare repo at path,

    1. Keep at ~/git/onefile a non-bare git repo containing one innocuous file such as .gitignore. (Alternatively, create such a repo dynamically.)
    2. (cd ~/git/onefile; git push path master)
    3. git clone -o name path

    In other words, don’t attempt to clone the empty repo, but rather after creating it, push to it a simple repo containing one innocuous file. Then it is no longer empty and can be cloned.

    If someone does not beat me to it, I will post a shell script.

  • Stages a staged file in git?
  • Query last commit to a git repo without cloning
  • Error deploying to heroku
  • Show commits made on branch originally (filter out merged commits)
  • git: check if commit xyz in remote repo?
  • When one adds an untracked file, does it not go to staged immediately?
  • One Solution collect form web for “What's the most straightforward way to clone an empty, *bare* git repository?”

    May be just have a git repo with the minimum number of file in it:

    one: .gitignore with obvious ignore patterns in it.

    And then clone that “almost empty” repository.
    Note that such an “almost empty” repository (“almost” because it still has a minimal working directory alongside the .git directory) can then by ‘git clone --bare‘ (as illustrated here), making it a true bare repo (but not an “empty” one).
    This is that bare repo you can then:

    • clone everywhere you want.
    • or (more importantly) push to (since it is a bare repo)

    You have in this thread a good summary of the “other way around” (which I keep here for reference).

    $ git-init
    $ git-remote add origin server:/pub/git/test.git
    

    For a new project (no code yet) I wanted to make an empty, bare
    repository (no working copy) on a remote public server as a starting
    point, clone it locally, and gradually create content locally and
    push it out to the remote, public server.

    To which Junio C Hamano responded:

    You prepared an empty bare repository for publishing, and that
    is very good.

    The next step is that you prepare your contents elsewhere. That
    would be your private working place, i.e. the place you would
    normally work in).
    You push from your private working place
    into that publishing repository.
    Your working place is where
    the very initial commit should come from, since you are the one
    who is starting the project.

    Note that the private working place does not have to be a clone
    of the empty one. That actually is backwards. Your work
    started from your private working place to the publishing one.

    You could even clone your private repository to publishing one
    to make it clear who is the master and who is the copy if you
    wanted to, but because you already have the bare repository for
    publishing, just pushing into it is all that is needed.

    Git Baby is a git and github fan, let's start git clone.