Re: Definition of "the Git repository"

> On 2021/06/26 04:48, Philip Oakley wrote:
>>
>> ... One can also include in the generic 'repository' the
>> various special .git* files that are [user] added to the main source
>> directory.
>>
>> But it gets worse. In the .git directory there is the 'objects' ...
>
> I don't believe it does get worse, indeed, I am not convinced that it
> is as bad as your observation on the semantics might suggest.
>
> Everything within the .git directory "belongs", in my way of thinking,
> to the "repository", that is, the directory that gets created when git
> is (init)ialised.

>
> For me, the 'objects", the 'ref/heads', the "staging area' and the like,
> also lie within the repository.
>
> As for any anciliary files, that control how the git commands actually
> process any data in the "working directory" beyond the defaults, some
> of them, eg the global commands, will typically exist outside of the
> working directory: below one's home directory, and, of course, there
> are the system-wide files, typically below /etc.
>
> Given then, that we can have Git-related files, for any given working
> directory, below /etc, below the user's home directory, and within the
> working directory itself, perhaps it is the whole "computer" which
> should be referred to as "the repository"?
>
> Furthermore, even in the case of anciliary files typically found within
> the working directory, and I'm thinking of .gitignore as the obvious
> example, even the directives in that can be overriden on the command
> line, as well as complemented by files outside of the working directory.
>
>
> I am tempted to say that even if the definition of a "repository" can't
> be agreed on, or rather, easily determined by inspection, then at least
> the corresponding working directory can be, however, the fact that one
> has  access to EnvVars and corresponding command line arguments such as
> --git-dir=<path>, --work-tree=<path>, would suggest that it could be
> harder for the novice to get their head around things, however, as it is
> typicaly clear what the working directory is (the top level directory
> containing the files you are working on, under the control of Git),
> calling that same directory the "repository" seems, to me anyway, to add
> to any confusion, that a Git novice may have.
>
> Given the can of worms that this question has opened up, although I'm
> getting the feeling that it has long since been opened, I still maintain
> that it would be less confusing, at least for a novice, for the working
> directory to be identified and for a previously non-existent directory,
> that gets created by the 'git init', to be referred to as the repository,
> so as to make a distinction.