On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:56:20AM +0100, Ãvar ArnfjÃrà Bjarmason wrote:
> I had a co-worker git this well-known error message:
>
> error: refusing to update checked out branch: refs/heads/master
> error: By default, updating the current branch in a non-bare repository
> error: is denied, because it will make the index and work tree inconsistent
> error: with what you pushed, and will require 'git reset --hard' to match
> error: the work tree to HEAD.
>
> It *was* a bare repo, but the config file had bare=false because
> someone had simply copied a .git tree from a non-bare repo to make it.
That seems like the problem there. I'm not blaming the user; what they
expected to happen is reasonable, and even used to work. But I wonder if
better education is possible.
> The issue is that we just use this:
>
> int is_bare_repository(void)
> {
> /* if core.bare is not 'false', let's see if there is a work tree */
> return is_bare_repository_cfg && !get_git_work_tree();
> }
> For the purposes of the error message it would be helpful if we also
> detected whether something didn't have a working tree, but was set to
> bare=false, and tell the user to updatet he bare=false to bare=true
> for his almost-bare repository.
How do we know whether or not it has a working tree? Can't I do
something like:
cd /var/working-trees/foo
git init
mv .git /var/repositories/foo.git
export GIT_DIR=/var/repositories/foo.git
echo content >file && git add file && git commit -m foo
I thought the reason that core.bare was introduced was to handle weird
cases like this.
-Peff
--
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