Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Maaartin wrote:
>> On 11-01-19 13:42, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>
>>> Unfortunately the existence of GIT_WORK_TREE makes it tempting to
>>> use without setting GIT_DIR.
>>
>> Maybe I'm asking nonsense, but why should I always use both?
>
> That is, why do we want to discourage setting the work tree without
> GIT_DIR in the first place?
I read that one quite differently. Maaartin was always at the root level
and did not need GIT_WORK_TREE, and in such a case there is no need to use
both. Only GIT_DIR is needed.
This is a tangent, because I just said what Maaartin said is
irrelevant to the question "Why do I have to set GIT_DIR when I want
to set GIT_WORK_TREE?", which is what you are discussing, but I
suspect Maaartin was not getting the correct output from diff commands
by having two sets of "working tree" looking files, chdir'ing to their
root level and having a single GIT_DIR, and was not noticing it. It
should _not_ work: think "index".
The answer to your question might be your question itself, though.
Having said that, thanks for a nice summary.
> 1. Previously there was some confusion about what path the worktree
> is relative to. Now setup_explicit_git_dir makes it clear:
> + GIT_WORK_TREE and --work-tree are relative to the original cwd;
> + the "[core] worktree" setting is relative to the gitdir.
Good. I earlier said that relative GIT_WORK_TREE does not make much
sense, but I wasn't (and I am not) opposed to the above definition. It is
just that
GIT_DIR=/some/where; export GIT_DIR
cd /some/other/place
GIT_WORK_TREE=. git reset --hard
cd onelevel
edit edit edit
GIT_WORK_TREE=.. git add file
cd twolevels
edit edit edit
GIT_WORK_TREE=../.. git add file
...
would be a much more cumbersome thing to do compared to:
GIT_WORK_TREE=/some/other/place; export GIT_WORK_TREE
cd $(GIT_WORK_TREE)
git reset --hard
cd onelevel
edit edit edit
git add file
cd twolevels
edit edit edit
git add file
...
> 5. The interaction with core.bare and implicit bareness are not
> obvious. Clearly core.bare should conflict with core.worktree,
> but can GIT_WORK_TREE override that? Maybe
> check_repository_format_gently is the right place for this check
> (rather than the setup procedure).
IIRC, we on purpose added support to allow GIT_WORK_TREE to tentatively
lift bareness of a repository so that people can
cd /var/tmp
GIT_WORK_TREE=. git --git-dir=/srv/git/jgit.git checkout -f
to get a snapshot easily.
> (1) and (2) have been resolved by your work (nice!), (3) seems like
> a case of "don't do that, then", and (4) out to error out in
> setup_nongit (though my patch doesn't take care of that). Given an
> answer to (5) we could wholeheartedly and consistently support
> worktree with implicit gitdir, as a new feature.
As long as we really can support it _consistently_, I wouldn't see a big
problem in resurrecting the historical accident as a feature. You earlier
said gitolite also misuses the interface, but does the usage pattern it
has the same as the one in the debian script you had trouble with, and do
they expect the same behaviour?
--
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