Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 2010/12/22 Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>> Âconst char *get_git_work_tree(void)
>>> Â{
>>> - Â Â if (startup_info && !startup_info->setup_explicit) {
>>> -...
>>> - Â Â }
>>> Â Â Â return work_tree;
>>> Â}
>>
>> Would it be a bug in the new set-up code if this function gets called and
>> work_tree is still NULL?
>>
>> There are quite a few callers that call get_git_work_tree() and expect
>> that it will always return a non NULL pointer. ÂPerhaps we would want an
>> assertion here?
>>
>
> While the assertion sounds good, it does not work well. The old
> function can return NULL in bare repos. is_bare_repository() and
> is_inside_work_tree() expect NULL from get_git_work_tree() sometimes.
Ok, don't bother changing anything in that case---it won't help us much.
--
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