I did recheck the tutorials, and did not find the code I was

using.  So there was nothing incorrect in the documentation.
As for "master working where "master:master" didn't, this only exposes a

more complex set of rules.  I was not hoping for a more complex set of

rules to learn, as GIT tried to figure out what I meant.  I was hoping

for a simpler command that did what I told it to do, and I was given it

by Junio Hamano.
What distracted me was that after the "git --bare init", there seemed to

be a incompletely defined setup.  This sent me down the wrong path.
Although there was a master branch to which HEAD pointed, there was no

ref/heads/master file or even a "packed-refs".  This also confuses the

the "git branch" command, so that when I initial tried "git --bare

branch" it seemed unaware of any master branch.  I then tried:
$ git --bare branch refs/heads/master

fatal: Not a valid object name: 'master'.
If there isn't an initial master branch, then shouldn't "git branch" be

able to create one.  And if there is one, shouldn't the automatic rules

explained in git-rev-parse man page find it?  The error messages from

the branch command is what got me on the wrong logical path.
The man page for git-init says:
  This command creates an empty git repository - basically a .git directory

  with subdirectories for objects, refs/heads, refs/tags, and template

  files. An initial HEAD file that references the HEAD of the master branch

  is also created.
Which is true, but although there is a HEAD that references the

master branch, there isn't really any master branch.  It might

say something like:
  This command creates an empty git repository - basically a .git directory

  with subdirectories for objects, refs/heads, refs/tags, and template

  files. An initial HEAD file references the refs/heads/master branch

  which is created with the first commit.
This would at least somewhat explain "git branch" results.
The man page for git-push seems clear to me now.  I should ...
[ message continues ]

Hi,
[please do not cull me from the Cc: list, especially when you are quoting

me]
Good.  Just for my curiousity: where in the documentation did you look for

help?  (We might want to advertise "git push <nick> <branch>" more loudly 
That means that there was no master branch.  Before the first commit, a 
Why?  I really do not see the point in creating a branch which is named

different than "master", when you have nothing to begin with.
Just use "master".  As easy as that.
If you really have to paint the bike shed, you can always rename your 
How about "Your first commit will create the master branch" instead of the

last sentence?
Ciao,

Dscho
-