On rare occasions, a project may need to store and version a .git directory in a git repository. For instance, a project that interacts with git repositories may need test cases. Or, a project using git to store backups may also want to back up git repositories. `.git` is the only filename that git can't transparently store and version. I've seen projects take different approaches to work around this. For instance, the libgit2 project renames the `.git` directory to `.gitted`, and then their test framework copies that to a temporary directory as `.git`. Would it make sense to have a standardized escaping mechanism for this, that git could then standardize the handling of in a safe way (taking both project configuration and local configuration into account)? Such a mechanism would not, by default, result in git checking out a `.git` directory verbatim, as that wouldn't be safe (due to hook scripts and due to searches for .git directories), but a user could configure their own system to do so for a specific project, tools like `git archive` could have a way to un-escape the directory in a generated archive, and references to objects within a treeish could use such paths. Standardizing this would allow tools to interoperate rather than each inventing their own convention. (Note that today, git *can* successfully check in, version, update, and check out a bare repo.git directory, just not a non-bare .git directory.) As one possible escaping (absolutely subject to bikeshedding): - Reserve names starting with a specified character (e.g. \x01); call that escape character E. - Encode filenames that actually start with E to start with EE - Encode .git as E.git - Require an opt-in to interpret this escaping; tools that don't interpret this escaping will still be able to operate on the files, in much the same way that it's possible to operate on a symlink as if it were a file containing the target path. There are tradeoffs here: using a more type-able escape character would be convenient if a user ever had to deal with the raw name, but on the other hand, using a more type-able escape character would make the need to escape the escape character come up more often. Regardless of the specific approach to escaping `.git`, does the general idea of standardizing such escaping across tools seem like something git could potentially do, to allow transparently storing *any* file or directory in a git repository? - Josh Triplett
