From: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha•warpmail.net>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>
Cc: "Tor Arne Vestbø" <tor.arne.vestbo@nokia•com>,
git@vger•kernel.org, trast@student•ethz.ch
Subject: Re: [PATCH] require_work_tree: Look for top-level instead of is-inside-work-tree
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 09:57:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C57CBEF.2070102@drmicha.warpmail.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7v8w4onc0l.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 02.08.2010 19:46:
> Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha•warpmail.net> writes:
>
>> An alternative which does not change the established behavior of
>> require_work_tree would be changing the order of require_work_tree and
>> cd_to_top_level in the callers where possible along the lines of
>>
>> http://mid.gmane.org/96abf622ca2cf92998ce4ed393ccaa75d95dd9a8.1279112025.git.git@drmicha.warpmail.net
>>
>> which got lost somehow. (The other callers, as mentioned by Junio, would
>> need to be changed differently, e.g. by moving cd_to... earlier.)
>
> Doesn't it sound stupid to "cd-to-toplevel" and then "require-work-tree"?
It sounds outright silly, agreed.
Though, unless you know the implementation, "cd_to_toplevel" may succeed
cd'ing to what "rev-parse --show-toplevel" returns without
require_work_tree being happy.
But don't we try to preserve existing behavior unless it's a bug? We
certainly have a mismatch of behavior and documentation here. The
question is whether we want to break anyone who relied on
"require_work_tree" dieing when cwd is not within the work-tree.
>
> If you can go to the top-level, and once you successfully got there, you
> already _know_ that you have a work tree (and also you already know at
> that point you are in the work tree). The reason why "require-work-tree"
> has been placed before "cd-to-toplevel" is exactly for that purpose, I
> think. It is possible that some callers wanted to "require-work-tree" to
> mean "I want you to not just _have_ a work tree, but actually be _in_ it",
> but I somehow doubt it. It is more like "I am going to ask you to go to
> the top, but let's make sure that you do have a top before doing so", I
> think.
Well, if people relied on current behavior...
I didn't, I don't mind changing this, in fact I'm usually in "changing
mood" and running into the "preserve behavior" wall ;)
In any case, I think "require_work_tree" should really test whether we
can cd into the worktree, i.e. whether a cd_to_toplevel would succeed,
and not just whether "rev-parse --show-toplevel" returns a non-empty string.
>
> I on the other hand do not think it is wrong to lose the existing calls to
> require-work-tree if you know that you are going to call cd-to-toplevel
> before doing any git operation that needs to have a work-tree, though.
>
>> Another problem I noticed back then (I was away since) was that a
>> relative GIT_WORK_TREE is left in place after a cd_to_top_level and
>> messes things up completely - it does not seem to be relative to
>> GIT_DIR. So, there seems to be more to fix in this area.
>
> I agree; I don't think GIT_WORK_TREE was designed to be anything but an
> absolute path to begin with. If a command chdir's around and exports the
> environment to its hooks and subcommands, it should be prepared to adjust
> it before doing so.
We do have some magic to re-export a relative GIT_DIR as absolute, and
the doc says GIT_WORK_TREE is relative to GIT_DIR. We even have a test
which succeeds by pure chance, as playing around with different layouts
shows. I'll try to come up at least with tests for this when I get to it.
Cheers,
Michael
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-08-03 7:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-07-28 16:47 [PATCH] require_work_tree: Look for top-level instead of is-inside-work-tree Tor Arne Vestbø
2010-07-28 23:00 ` Junio C Hamano
2010-07-30 11:04 ` Tor Arne Vestbø
2010-08-02 14:37 ` Michael J Gruber
2010-08-02 17:46 ` Junio C Hamano
2010-08-03 7:57 ` Michael J Gruber [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4C57CBEF.2070102@drmicha.warpmail.net \
--to=git@drmicha$(echo .)warpmail.net \
--cc=git@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox$(echo .)com \
--cc=tor.arne.vestbo@nokia$(echo .)com \
--cc=trast@student$(echo .)ethz.ch \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox