Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
When I clone a repository, is there any difference between these two URLs?
Without .git extension:
git clone http://foo/repo
With .git extension:
git clone http://foo/repo.git
The convention is that the .git extension should be used for bare repositories, and left off of directories with a working tree. Git doesn’t really care, but has a few convenience methods that make this fairly transparent.
For example, if you have a repository named /tmp/foo.git and you call
git clone file:///tmp/foo, Git will first try to find /tmp/foo. If it doesn’t exist, it will try /tmp/foo.git instead.This does not work the other way around. If your directory is named /tmp/foo and you try to clone from /tmp/foo.git you will be told:
Most of the HTTP/HTTPS functionality is from your web server, not Git. Even if you’re using Smart HTTP transport, I suspect most of the magic happens in a server-side LocationMatch directive. Theory aside, some quick tests against GitHub show that it works the same way as the SSH and Git procotols in that respect, but your mileage may vary on other web servers.