Hi,
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, Matthias Lederhofer wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > +const char *get_git_work_tree(void)
> > +{
> > + static int initialized = 0;
> > + if (!initialized) {
> > + work_tree = getenv(GIT_WORK_TREE_ENVIRONMENT);
> > + if (!work_tree) {
> > + work_tree = git_work_tree_cfg;
> > + if (work_tree && !is_absolute_path(work_tree))
> > + work_tree = git_path(work_tree);
>
> A tab is missing here.
Right. And as Junio pointed out, an xstrdup().
> > - fprintf(stderr, "No directory given for --work-tree.\n" );
> > + error("No directory given for --work-tree.\n");
>
> There should probably be no '\n' at the end when the 'error' function
> is used. There are two other calls to fprintf(stderr, <error message>)
> next to the one you changed, why did you change this one but not the
> other ones?
Well, that is a left over of some unrelated editing.
The patch series that I sent out was deficient in many ways, but I was
tired, and wanted to show where I am heading.
ATM I am trying to finish up this series, with quite a few changes to the
code I sent out.
But there is a fundamental question I have to ask: Is there any reason why
$ git --git-dir=/some/where/else.git bla
should pretend that the repo is bare if core.bare == 1? I mean, we are
implicitely setting the work tree to the cwd, no?
IOW I see the merits of "core.bare = false" (to prevent harm when calling
git inside the git directory), but I cannot see the merits of "core.bare =
true". Someone enlighten me?
Ciao,
Dscho
-
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
