On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Jeff King wrote: > > It is more expensive, though we will be doing it once per user-supplied > pathspec, so I don't know that it will actually have an impact. Well, I'm more worried about just bugs, actually. Doing this right is actually rather hard. For example, our current "make_absolute_path()" is simply not very good, and it's almost impossible to *make* it very good. Why? It relies on being able to get the current cwd, which isn't always even possible on all systems. What about unreadable directories? What about just so *deep* directories, that the cwd doesn't fit in the 1kB allocated for it? Both do happen (people use executable but non-readable directories for security sometimes). I'm also almost certain that you can confuse it by renaming directories while that thing is running, etc etc. IOW, that whole thing is simply a bug waiting to happen. The fact that it apparently *always* runs whether needed or not just seems to make it worse (ie if we already know our cwd, and the absolute path we have already has that as a prefix, just strip it off, don't try to do anything complex, and leave the complex and fragile cases for the odd-ball when the simple approach doesn't work) Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
