On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > >> So, what is the big problem about accepting that patching git-status for > >> one obscure use is wrong, wrong, wrong, when git-diff already does what is > >> needed??? > > > > Because git-status itself is conceptually a read-only operation, and > > having it barf on a read-only file system is justifiably a bug. > > I do not 100% agree that it is conceptually a read-only operation. It is. It's the technical issue that makes it not so. But when a user asks for a status, he's clearly not expecting to _write_ anything, even less for the command to fail if the file system is read-only. This is like if a file system driver refused to open a file when the file system is mounted read-only just because it cannot update the file's atime on disk. Just like the atime example, we may refresh the index while at it when preparing the status results. This is a valid technical concern. But it for sure should not be mandatory for the command to succeed if the file system is read-only. Nicolas - 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