Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I don't see why we'd consider that as a worthwhile direction to go
> in. The "git-init" documentation states:
>
> This command creates an empty Git repository - basically a `.git`
> directory with subdirectories for `objects`, `refs/heads`,
> `refs/tags`, and template files.
>
> I.e. we promise to create "objects", but not "objects/{info,pack}", even
> though we've done so since f49fb35d0d5 (git-init-db: create "pack"
> subdirectory under objects, 2005-06-27) and d57306c7945 (Create
> objects/info/ directory in init-db., 2005-08-20).
I view it as a documentation bug, though.
The only thing we need to promise is that (1) the directory prepared
by "git init" will be recognised as a repository by the current and
future versions of Git (and hopefully the existing ones, too), and
(2) versions of Git will not barf due to missing directory and stuff
due to end-user mischief around custom templates. I do not think we
even need refs/heads/ directory and I do not see that, especially
with a presence with "basically" there, the sentence promises that
we will always create refs/tags/ directory. For (1), only objects/,
refs/ and HEAD is necessary, as long as (2) is satisfied by lazy
creation of leading paths.
We would want to be able to cope with a repository that lost
.git/info directory due to loss of it in custom templates anyway.
Just like we create leading missing directories lazily for any
hierarchy under .git/, we should create .git/info on-demand.
Pre-creating .git/info might be nice, but becomes much less
important after it happens, and that is why I view it as a much
lower priority than what Derrick suggested.
