On 2023.05.08 18:31, Taylor Blau wrote: > On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 03:30:38PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Thanks. We saw no interest on the list in reviewing this patch > > further, it seems, but I didn't see anything glaringly wrong, see > > no reason not to merge it, and this should help noticing potential > > issues by $corp folks, I would presume, so let's merge it as-is. > > I took a look through this thread and would be fine to see this one > picked up, though I did have a couple of questions: > > - Is the plan to eventually disable $GIT_DIR discovery in bare > repositories by default in a future version? I am still uncertain > of the assumption that most end-users don't interact with bare > repositories directly. I think at some point in the future, we'd like for `safe.bareRepository=explicit` to be the default. To get to a state where we're comfortable making that change, we plan in the near-ish future to flip the default when `feature.experimental` is enabled. > Certainly forges touch bare repositories without always setting > $GIT_DIR in their environment. But I would imagine that other tools > indirectly touch bare repositories on behalf of the user. You > mentioned "go" as one such tool that doesn't set $GIT_DIR, I imagine > there are many more. > > - If it is the plan to disable $GIT_DIR discovery in bare repositories > in the future, I'm not sure how visible the extra trace line would > be. Perhaps that is desirable, since having an advise() call on > every Git invocation in a bare repository would be noisy. Yeah, this is mainly to help us plan for our internal rollout of `safe.bareRepository=explicit` at $DAYJOB, but we assume it would be helpful for others who might also be considering this, or for developers of affected tooling when they receive a bug report that bareRepository breaks their users. We also want to add some more detailed tracing in general around repo/worktree initialization, but that part is not so urgent.
