Re: finding the right remote branch for a commit

From: martin f krafft <madduck@madduck.net>
Date: Jul 12, 2007, 07:47 UTC
Message-ID: <20070712074745.GA28507@piper.oerlikon.madduck.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707112226170.4516@racer.site>

also sprach Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> [2007.07.11.2326 +0200]:

> Okay, after discussing this for a bit on IRC, here is what I would
> do (I already said this on IRC, but the mailing list is really the
> better medium for this):

I agree. However, I find IRC to have its merits. For instance, all of our discussion yesterday would have taken days over the list, but on IRC I was able to interject when I did not understand something or you could stop me when I was going down a garden path.

Of course, IRC isn't archived in the sense that lists are, which is why I make an effort to send updates to the list, such as I did to another thread yesterday: http://marc.info/?l=git&m=118418250002028&w=2

> I would actually rename .etc/ into gits/, because it is not
> a directory containing settings, but a directory containing
> repositories.

Yes and no. I already use ~/.etc/ to store my settings and symlink into it, but I do like your idea too, actually. I have yet to go and try it, and I shall report back then.

> Everytime I would work on, say, .vimrc, I would say
> "--git-dir=$HOME/gits/vim.git", or maybe even make an alias in
> $HOME/.gitconfig, which spares me that:

I wish there were a way to determine which repository a file belongs to and then to automatically select the right repository. I guess one can script that by iterating all repos and using git-ls-files, possibly caching the result.

Anyway, I tried your approach and failed:

  $ mkdir repo
  $ GIT_DIR=repo git init
  $ GIT_DIR=repo git config core.bare false
  $ echo 1 >a; GIT_DIR=repo git add a; GIT_DIR=repo git commit -m.
  fatal: add must be run in a work tree
  nothing to commit (use "git add file1 file2" to include for commit)

I am probably doing something wrong, but what?

> Come to think of it, this is maybe what I would have done, but it appears 
> to me that this is the _ideal_ use case for worktree:

Yes, it does. I am downloading the source now and intend to work with the HEAD (is that the right term for what I used to call trunk when I was doing SVN?) from now on (instead of the Debian package).

Show 7 quoted lines

> - you have to say
> 
>   $ git --work-tree=$HOME --bare init
> 
>   which is a bit counterintuitive.  After all, it is _not_ a bare 
>   repository.  The whole purpose of worktree, as far as I understand, is 
>   to have a _detached_ repository, which would otherwise be called bare.

I said

  GIT_DIR=repo git --work-tree `pwd` init

and that seems to do everything it should, it sets core.worktree to . and core.bare to false.

> Those are serious bugs.  Matthias, any idea how to fix them?

That would be splendid. I am operating off HEAD now, so feel free to prod me for any testing.

-- 
martin;              (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
  \____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:" net@madduck
 
spamtraps: madduck.bogus@madduck.net
 
"a scientist once wrote that all truth passes through three stages:
 first it is ridiculed, then violently opposed and eventually,
 accepted as self-evident."
                                                       -- schopenhauer