"Horst H. von Brand" <vonbrand@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Junio C Hamano <junkio@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> ...
>> This _is_ a regression, as we are checking something we did not
>> check before and refusing to work in cases where we did. But I
>> am not sure if reverting to lift the safety (for that matter,
>> introducing the third "depends" alternative) is better than the
>> latest behaviour.
>
> It grates me somewhat that there isn't a clean way of saying "My .git stuff
> is over there". No big deal, really.
>
> And it is not a "depends", AFAICS: GIT_DIR says where to stash stuff, users
> had better know what they are doing in that case... so perhaps allow
> anything if GIT_DIR is set?
One problem I have with that is that doing so would make it
harder to prevent pushing into the current branch of a
repository with working tree from happening later.
In the "sequence of tarballs" example, I wonder why you cannot
do something like:
git init-db
for tarball
do
tar xf $tarball
# if it extracts in a wrong directory, move them
# up first ...
git add .
git commit -a
git rm -r .
done
-
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