Your way to use git seems pretty unusual to me. Why do you want to have 2 repos with the same history after all? I guess most of your readers prefer to create a branch in the existing repo instead of doing a bare-clone and mirror-push to a new repo.
Full stack web developer with a passion for problem-solving. Experience in Ruby on Rails, JavaScript/React with a background in documentary film and baking.
Hi Thorsten! Good point, most probably do prefer to create a branch in their existing repo. I'll probably use this approach in the future too.
The project that prompted me to write this post was for a coding school. I wanted an exact duplicate to leave my existing Rails repo as-is for my portfolio while fulfilling the requirements for this new JS front-end project. I didn't anticipate merging the two branches in the end, so I figured I would treat them as essentially separate projects.
Your way to use git seems pretty unusual to me. Why do you want to have 2 repos with the same history after all? I guess most of your readers prefer to create a branch in the existing repo instead of doing a bare-clone and mirror-push to a new repo.
Hi Thorsten! Good point, most probably do prefer to create a branch in their existing repo. I'll probably use this approach in the future too.
The project that prompted me to write this post was for a coding school. I wanted an exact duplicate to leave my existing Rails repo as-is for my portfolio while fulfilling the requirements for this new JS front-end project. I didn't anticipate merging the two branches in the end, so I figured I would treat them as essentially separate projects.
Now that makes sense. :) Thank you for clearing this up.