On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 11:42:24AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Peter Baumann <waste.manager@xxxxxx> writes:
>
> <ot>
>
> Getting more and more annoyed by your stupid Mail-Followup-To...
> I do *not* want to bother Julian with a message that points out
> a flaw (in my opinion) in YOUR reasoning but you are forcing me
> to send my message that way, which I have to waste time
> correcting every time. Grumble.
>
> </ot>
Hm. Sorry. I don't understand. I'm just pressing 'g' for group reply in
mutt which should do the right thing; even your mail has a CC to Julian
set so I _really_ don't understand the problem. I addressed him in the
begining because he was the author of git-new-workdir. But please
forgive me if I'm breaking some netiquette rules but I just started to
hang out activly on mailinglists ...
>
> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 11:17:43AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> Peter Baumann <waste.manager@xxxxxx> writes:
> >> ...
> >> > I thought about the case where packed-refs is a symlink to another symlink
> >> > and then decided that it's not worth to implement this because a workdir
> >> > should be linked to a _repo_ and not another workdir.
> >>
> >> That's incredibly weak, as the initial motivation of this patch
> >> is that you did not want to say "you should run gc only in the
> >> _repo_ not in workdir".
> >
> > Yes. That's my motivation and it works right now
> >
> > git init a
> > <hack, hack, hack,>
> > git commit -a
> >
> > git-new-workdir a b # allowed
> > git-new-workdir a c # allowed
> >
> > git-new-workdir b d # NOT ALLOWED
>
> But I do not think you are disallowing it; instead you are
> making the same problem appear without telling the user.
>
> Also, how is the above different from this?
>
> git init a
> cd a ; git gc ; cd .. # allowed
> git new-workdir a b
> cd b ; git gc ; cd .. # NOT ALLOWED
>
Sorry, you lost me here. Your above sequence _is_ allowed and that was
just the point of the patch. I lightly tested it that it does the right
thing, so perhaps I'm missing something?
What isn't allowed is the following:
mkdir a; cd a; git-init; cd ..
git new-workdir a b
cd b; git gc ; cd .. # IS ALLOWED
git new-workdir b c
cd b; git gc ; cd .. # NOT ALLOWED
Because now you created a new workdir c which doesn't point to a repo,
but only to another _workdir_ b. And only in this case you get a symlink
chain like this:
c/.git/packed-refs -> b/.git/packed-refs -> a/.git/packed-refs
This is even dissallowed by the code in git-new-workdir (Sorry, I just
saw it now; otherwise I wouldn't spend so much time in arguing this)):
# don't link to a workdir
if test -L "$orig_git/.git/config"
then
die "\"$orig_git\" is a working directory only, please specify" \
"a complete repository."
fi
> You are saying "you should run workdir only in the _repo_ not in
> workdir".
>
This sentence doesn't make any sense to me. Did you mean "you should run
gc only ..." ?
> As I already said, certain things work differently between a
> proper repository and a worktree that borrows .git/refs from a
> proper repository, and you always have to know what you are
> doing when you use such a setup. If your goal is to minimize
> the difference, I do not think it makes much sense to allow gc
> and not allow new-workdir.
>
I think you missunderstud me. Hopefully the above explanation clears this
missunderstanding. The case I feared (symlink chain of workdirs) is not
allowed in git-new-workdir from the very begining of this script, so
there shouldn't be any problem with the symlink handling in my patch.
> On the other hand, if we admit that things work differently, I
> think erroring out gc or pack-refs when we see .git/packed-refs
> is a symbolic link is much simpler, less error prone and easier
> to explain.
>
But with my patch it just works! I really tested it again. The link
in b/.git/packed-refs -> a/.git/packed-refs (using the example from above)
isn't broken up and in the new generated packed-refs are stored inside
the repo a (as they should).
-Peter
-
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