On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 8:12 AM Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 06:18:58AM +0100, Sebastian Staudt wrote:
> > This ensures the given working tree is used for --dirty.
>
> There's been a lot of digging and discussion on the list about what
> happens if we don't do this. Could we summarize it here?
>
> Perhaps:
>
> We don't use NEED_WORK_TREE when running the git-describe builtin,
> since you should be able to describe a commit even in a bare
> repository. However, the --dirty flag does need a working tree. Since
> we don't call setup_work_tree(), it uses whatever directory we happen
> to be in. That's unlikely to match our index, meaning we'd say "dirty"
> even when the real working tree is clean.
>
> We can fix that by calling setup_work_tree() once we know that the
> user has asked for --dirty.
I have not particularly been following this thread, but this proposed
commit message does an excellent job of summarizing and explaining the
issue and making the fix obvious (so, now I don't have to go back and
read the entire thread).
> > The implementation of --broken uses diff-index which calls
> > setup_work_tree() itself.
>
> If I hadn't just read the rest of the thread, I'd probably wonder why we
> are talking about --broken at all. Maybe:
>
> The --broken option similarly needs a working tree. But because the
> current implementation calls an external diff-index to do the work,
> we don't have to bother setting up the working tree in the
> git-describe process.
This rewrite left me slightly in the dark since I had to infer that
git-diff-index calls setup_work_tree() itself. Perhaps:
...an external diff-index to do the work, which itself calls
setup_work_tree(), we don't have to bother...
But that's minor.
