On Tue, Dec 07 2021, Derrick Stolee wrote: > On 12/7/2021 1:30 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >> >> On Tue, Dec 07 2021, Derrick Stolee wrote: >>> test_expect_success 'remove cwd' ' >>> init_repos && >>> >>> test_sparse_match git sparse-checkout set deep/deeper1/deepest && >>> for repo in sparse-checkout sparse-index >>> do >>> ( >>> cd $repo/deep/deeper1 && >>> test-tool getcwd >"$TRASH_DIRECTORY/expect" && >>> git sparse-checkout set && >>> >>> test-tool getcwd >"$TRASH_DIRECTORY/actual" && >>> test_sparse_match git status --porcelain && >>> cd "$TRASH_DIRECTORY" && >>> test_cmp expect actual >>> ) >>> done >>> ' >>> >>> Please do not let this test delay the advancement of this series. As we >>> find these kinds of issues, we can fix them one-by-one as needed. >> >> Not to pile on about "the core idea", just a question while this is >> fresh in your mind: >> >> I think that those cases would per [1] be ones where a more isolated >> change of reading the $PWD from the environment would make all those >> commands work as expected. Or would the "$TRASH_DIRECTORY" also >> otherwise go away in this examples? > > I have read this message and the one you are referring two twice and > I cannot understand what you are trying to say here. I'm asking whether the WIP patch I posted at https://lore.kernel.org/git/211124.86sfvld4cl.gmgdl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ would partially/entirely solve those issues you mentiened (but I see Elijah has a side-reply saying it might not in either approach). >> Anyway, just per [1] and the potential future follow-ups is this (I >> don't think so, but maybe I'm wrong) or other examples you have things >> that specifically need the "retain the getcwd()" part of this series? >> >> Or just (as I think would be the case with that "git status") to not >> have setup.c die quite as eagerly as it does now when getcwd() fails, >> but it can find its way back to the .git via the environment's $PWD? > > Are you implying that Git will be the only thing broken by a missing > directory after we leave in this state? I doubt that is true, and we > should be good citizens here by leaving the directory around. No, I'm just trying to clarify which specific thing we'd need in this/other cases to fix things *in git*. Because... >> There *are* definitely cases where not-just-that-setup.c change but also >> the "don't remove the CWD" is an inherently better & more complete >> solution. But I think that's mainly to do with 3rd party shellscripts & >> other programs outside of our control. > > Exactly. We should take this change because it is valuable to not cause > a confusing error in other tools. ...maybe we should fix things for other tools too, but for any future development it helps to know what was needed to fix what issues. >> I'm assuming that you were working with this on Windows, where >> presumably there's fewer/none such shellscripts you rely on, but that's >> now two presumes in a row, so... :) > > I'm working on Ubuntu, where I do all of my Git development unless there > is a platform specific reason to do so. *nod*, badly assumed then :)
