On 2023.04.27 16:36, Glen Choo wrote: > Josh Steadmon <steadmon@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > From: Glen Choo <chooglen@xxxxxxxxxx> > > I can confirm that I did write an initial version of this, which Josh > cleaned up for the mailing list (thanks!). Most, if not all, of the > mistakes are originally mine. > > > To make this transition easier, add a trace message to note when we > > attempt to set up a bare repository without setting GIT_DIR. This allows > > users and tool developers to audit which of their tools are problematic > > and report/fix the issue. When they are sufficiently confident, they > > would switch over to "safe.bareRepository=explicit". > > One alternative to this is to trace all of the repository setup process. > E.g. if we traced the data points in t/t1510-repo-setup.sh, like GIT_DIR > and whether the repository is bare, you could reverse-engineer whether > we've hit the "set up a bare repository without GIT_DIR" case, but > that's significantly more complicated. If the goal of this patch is to > make it easy for users, tool developers and sysadmins to see if > "safe.bareRepository=explicit" might be tripped, giving a single, > meaningful event is much easier way to get there. > > It would be nice to trace all of the repo setup eventually, anyway, and > I don't think this change precludes that. > > > Change-Id: I8e8b5e70ce8c6c81ec4716187c27c44da38b35db > > Leftover from Gerrit, perhaps? > > Unsurprisingly, I don't have comments on the diff, at least not anything > that Junio hasn't already spotted. Whoops, thanks for the catch. It would seem my send-email workflow broke somehow while I was away from work. I also had a comment explaining why I was sending this out for you, which somehow got dropped.
