On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 9:32 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> "Ghanshyam Thakkar" <shyamthakkar001@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> >> Specifically, the commit that introduced the comment never wanted to
> >> honor core.bare in the template. I do not think I has core.bare in
> >> mind when I wrote the comment, but I would have described it as the
> >> same category as the repository format version, i.e. something you
> >> would not want to copy, if I were pressed to clarify back then.
> >
> > Then I suppose this warrants updating the TODO comment in
> > create_default_files(), which currently can be interpreted as this
> > being a unwanted behavior. And also amending the testcases which
> > currently display this as knwon breakage.
>
> I obviously agree with that, after saying that I suspect 0f7443bd
> comes from a misunderstanding ;-).
Sounds fine to me. I have no particular interest in supporting
core.bare from the template; it's just that in order to do other
cleanup, I needed to remove the init_is_bare_repository global
variable (see c2f76965d02 ("init-db: remove unnecessary global
variable", 2023-05-16)). Attempting to remove that global variable
made it _look_ like I was changing the code behavior and breaking it
in the case when core.bare was true in the template. I knew possible
code breakage was what code reviewers would ask about. And my best
reading of the fact that the variable existed plus how the code was
written suggested to me that indeed someone else thought this might be
important to support. So, I left the TODO behind to document that I
wasn't breaking the code with my changes (or even changing behavior at
all), and left some hints for the next reader who came along about
where they might start looking if they thought it was important to
fix.
