On Wednesday, October 9th, 2024 at 18:37, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Caleb White cdwhite3@xxxxx writes: > > > > existing repository", and another test that creates with the option > > > to use relative and uses the worktree/repository without the option > > > would simulate "how well existing versions of Git works when seeing > > > a worktree made with the newer git with the relative option". > > > > I can already tell you that this particular case is not going to work > > because existing versions of git expect the path to be absolute. Most > > of the changes in this patch revolve around properly reading/handling > > the relative paths, not writing the relative paths. > > > If we are talking about making irreversible change to an existing > repository, we may need to grab one extensions bit (cf. > Documentation/technical/repository-version.txt and then refer also > to Documentation/config/extensions.txt [*]) and flip it when we > wrote a relative link to refer to an worktree and repository. Thanks, I'll take a look at the references. > [Footnote] > > * The repository-version document claims that any extensions > invented must be registered there, but config/extensions.txt that > came later ignored it and seems to have acquired a few more than > the "master list". We should clean up the mess. Would you like the contents of config/extensions.txt moved into the repository-version document and then deleted?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
