Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Glen Choo <chooglen@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Martin observed that, viability aside, there's another approach that I >> haven't discussed: >> >> == 5 Disable bare repo discovery >> >> We could introduce a config value that disables bare repo discovery >> altogether. This would only disable _discovery_; a user can still use >> the bare repo by specifying the gitdir (e.g. via `--git-dir=.` or >> GIT_DIR). > > Does it or does it not count as "allowing discovery to do its job" > if you go to the directory, knowing that the directory is a bare > one, and expect Git to work in it? > > I am guessing that your definition of "discovery" is not even > consider if the current directory is a repository and always force > the user to tell us with --git-dir or GIT_DIR. Yes, I mean that even the current directory will be ignored when discovery is disabled. > I am not sure that > is realistically feasible (I am thinking of cases like "git fetch" > going to the remote repository on the local disk that is bare to run > "git upload-pack"), but if the fallout is not too bad, it may be a > good heuristics. Good detail - I hadn't considered the impact on our own child processes. I suspect this might be a huge undertaking. Unless there is significant interest in this option, I probably won't pursue it further.
