Re: [PATCH] worktree: update is_bare heuristics

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 11:30:00AM -0700, Jonathan Tan wrote:

> > >         strbuf_add_absolute_path(&worktree_path, get_git_common_dir());
> > > -       is_bare = !strbuf_strip_suffix(&worktree_path, "/.git");
> > > -       if (is_bare)
> > > +       if (!strbuf_strip_suffix(&worktree_path, "/.git"))
> > >                 strbuf_strip_suffix(&worktree_path, "/.");
> > 
> > We can just call these two calls unconditionally, right? No harm done
> > if we don't strip.
> 
> We can, and no harm done. But this if/then pattern is also repeated in
> other parts of the file (e.g. get_linked_worktree()) so I'll leave it in
> for consistency. (Also, for what it's worth, it's slightly faster if
> only one strip is done.)

I also think your version expresses the intent more clearly. We expect
to see one or the other, but not "foo/./.git". And so (just as the code
prior to your patch) we would not convert that to "foo".

I am not sure of exactly what the "/." is trying to accomplish, so maybe
that double-strip _would_ be desirable, but if so it is definitely
worthy of its own commit explaining why that is so.

Interestingly, the case in get_linked_worktree() makes a lot more sense
because it has added "." as an absolute path itself, and is just
cleaning up the results of its strbuf_add_absolute_path()[1]. Which
makes me wonder if the "/." stripping in get_main_worktree() is actually
cargo-culted and simply unnecessary.

-Peff

[1] It seems like it would be simpler to just use strbuf_getcwd() for
    this, but maybe I am missing something.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux