Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> And there is a good reason _not_ to write stuff inside the `.git/` >> directory unless you happen to be, well, Git itself: Git makes no >> guarantees whatsoever that you can write into that directory whatever you >> want. A future Git version might even write a file `.git/annex`, breaking >> `git-annex`' assumptions, and that'd be totally within the guarantees Git >> makes. > > This seems a bit harsh - many tools store their state under .git/ and > I think it makes sense for them to do so as it avoids creating > untracked files in the working copy. I would hope that we'd be > considerate of widely used tools such as 'git annex' when adding new > paths under .git/ Yes, a .git/annex file _can_ happen, but between civilized developer groups, such a thing would not happen without a good reason. If we have no good reason (apparently you and I did not think of any) to create such a file, "it can happen" is a poor straw-man, as we would be aiming to work well together. Yes, when we have a symbolic link as a tracked content, updating the target of the link when we need to update it is simply a bug, and it does not matter if it points at a file inside our own repository, or a file inside a different and unrelated repository that is owned by the same user, or a file in the user's home directory. Our own repository is not all that special from that perspective, and a change to penalize symbolic links that point into our repository specifically probably did make a bad choice. Thanks.
