5

I just created a Bitbucket account and already made a few commits to the Bitbucket server. I also invited my team to check the Bitbucket repo for changes.

But, after a while, I found an article saying that every shared repo should be a --bare one.

Is my Bitbucket repo, that I've created via the Bitbucket web interface are --bare one? Or should I create another --bare directory on my machine?

Is this necessary to do what is described in this answer to handle two remote repos?

honk
  • 7,217
  • 11
  • 62
  • 65
mochadwi
  • 759
  • 8
  • 24
  • 75
  • 1
    BitBucket is a repository hosting service and they have no reason to use repositories with attached working copies. No working copy also saves them lots of space. – knittl Sep 11 '14 at 09:46
  • @knittl did you mean, I can't work on any big project with my teammates? – mochadwi Sep 11 '14 at 09:59
  • 1
    No, I meant it's only in the best interest of BitBucket to use bare repositories on their servers. – knittl Sep 11 '14 at 10:08

2 Answers2

12

Yeah, you can assume that your bitbucket-repository is a bare-repository. By design.

Because all repositories that are hosted remote and are only to push-to should be bare. There's no reason to assume something different.

If you are unsure, follow your link and compare. But you don't need another git repository if you are happy with bitbucket as a host.

tjati
  • 5,069
  • 3
  • 31
  • 49
  • thank you very much sir :) yeah, this is answered my doubtness. So, I just need to continue my project rather than confused to create another git --bare repository :D – mochadwi Sep 11 '14 at 09:51
4

In Bitbucket's command line instructions to clone a repo, the remote repo named has the .git extension. From the Git Book,

By convention, bare repository directories end in .git

Ahmed Nawar
  • 1,305
  • 2
  • 8
  • 16