Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 02.08.2010 19:46: > Michael J Gruber <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> An alternative which does not change the established behavior of >> require_work_tree would be changing the order of require_work_tree and >> cd_to_top_level in the callers where possible along the lines of >> >> http://mid.gmane.org/96abf622ca2cf92998ce4ed393ccaa75d95dd9a8.1279112025.git.git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> which got lost somehow. (The other callers, as mentioned by Junio, would >> need to be changed differently, e.g. by moving cd_to... earlier.) > > Doesn't it sound stupid to "cd-to-toplevel" and then "require-work-tree"? It sounds outright silly, agreed. Though, unless you know the implementation, "cd_to_toplevel" may succeed cd'ing to what "rev-parse --show-toplevel" returns without require_work_tree being happy. But don't we try to preserve existing behavior unless it's a bug? We certainly have a mismatch of behavior and documentation here. The question is whether we want to break anyone who relied on "require_work_tree" dieing when cwd is not within the work-tree. > > If you can go to the top-level, and once you successfully got there, you > already _know_ that you have a work tree (and also you already know at > that point you are in the work tree). The reason why "require-work-tree" > has been placed before "cd-to-toplevel" is exactly for that purpose, I > think. It is possible that some callers wanted to "require-work-tree" to > mean "I want you to not just _have_ a work tree, but actually be _in_ it", > but I somehow doubt it. It is more like "I am going to ask you to go to > the top, but let's make sure that you do have a top before doing so", I > think. Well, if people relied on current behavior... I didn't, I don't mind changing this, in fact I'm usually in "changing mood" and running into the "preserve behavior" wall ;) In any case, I think "require_work_tree" should really test whether we can cd into the worktree, i.e. whether a cd_to_toplevel would succeed, and not just whether "rev-parse --show-toplevel" returns a non-empty string. > > I on the other hand do not think it is wrong to lose the existing calls to > require-work-tree if you know that you are going to call cd-to-toplevel > before doing any git operation that needs to have a work-tree, though. > >> Another problem I noticed back then (I was away since) was that a >> relative GIT_WORK_TREE is left in place after a cd_to_top_level and >> messes things up completely - it does not seem to be relative to >> GIT_DIR. So, there seems to be more to fix in this area. > > I agree; I don't think GIT_WORK_TREE was designed to be anything but an > absolute path to begin with. If a command chdir's around and exports the > environment to its hooks and subcommands, it should be prepared to adjust > it before doing so. We do have some magic to re-export a relative GIT_DIR as absolute, and the doc says GIT_WORK_TREE is relative to GIT_DIR. We even have a test which succeeds by pure chance, as playing around with different layouts shows. I'll try to come up at least with tests for this when I get to it. Cheers, Michael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html