On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Originally the test in t1020 was meant to not include setting the GIT_DIR
>> when testing inside a bare repository as it did not work without setting
>> GIT_DIR explicitly.
>>
>> Nowadays the test as originally intended works, so add it to the test
>> suite. We'll keep the test, which has been run through all years as another
>> test for finding regressions.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>
>> Junio, thanks for providing the context!
>>
>> I tried tracking down when this changes via bisect, though I messed up.
>> By looking through the code I find these commits most promising to have
>> fixed the underlying issue (I am no expert on subdirectory treatment)
>> 337e51c (Use git_config_early() instead of git_config() during repo setup, 2010-11-26)
>> 72183cb (Fix gitdir detection when in subdir of gitdir, 2009-01-16)
>> 9951d3b (setup: clean up setup_discovered_git_dir(), 2010-11-26)
>
> Thanks for digging.
>
> I personally do not think we would need to say "historic" (as it
> makes it sound as if we do not care if the use case is deprecated
> and dropped in the future) but I do not offhand think of a better
> label for that test (other than doing the cop-out "test (1)" vs
> "test (2)"), so let's queue this as-is.
At first I was in the mood of labeling that test
no file/rev ambiguity check inside a bare repo with GIT_DIR help
for older Gits
as in nursing homes for elder people, but I refrained from doing so
as it sounded derogatory in my mind and it broke the line limit.
I am not happy with (historic) either, maybe "(explicit GIT_DIR)"
is describing the test better without giving the reader the thoughts
as you raised here?
>
>
>>
>> t/t1020-subdirectory.sh | 11 +++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/t/t1020-subdirectory.sh b/t/t1020-subdirectory.sh
>> index 2edb4f2..022641d 100755
>> --- a/t/t1020-subdirectory.sh
>> +++ b/t/t1020-subdirectory.sh
>> @@ -162,16 +162,20 @@ test_expect_success 'no file/rev ambiguity check inside .git' '
>> )
>> '
>>
>> -test_expect_success 'no file/rev ambiguity check inside a bare repo' '
>> +test_expect_success '(historic) no file/rev ambiguity check inside a bare repo' '
>> + test_when_finished "rm -fr foo.git" &&
>> git clone -s --bare .git foo.git &&
>> (
>> cd foo.git &&
>> + # older Git needed help by exporting GIT_DIR=.
>> + # to realize that it is inside a bare repository.
>> + # We keep this test around for regression testing.
>> GIT_DIR=. git show -s HEAD
>> )
>> '
>>
>> -# This still does not work as it should...
>> -: test_expect_success 'no file/rev ambiguity check inside a bare repo' '
>> +test_expect_success 'no file/rev ambiguity check inside a bare repo' '
>> + test_when_finished "rm -fr foo.git" &&
>> git clone -s --bare .git foo.git &&
>> (
>> cd foo.git &&
>> @@ -180,7 +184,6 @@ test_expect_success 'no file/rev ambiguity check inside a bare repo' '
>> '
>>
>> test_expect_success SYMLINKS 'detection should not be fooled by a symlink' '
>> - rm -fr foo.git &&
>> git clone -s .git another &&
>> ln -s another yetanother &&
>> (
--
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