Re: [RFC] require-work-tree wants more than what its name says

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: May 4, 2011, 08:50 UTC
Message-ID: <20110504085014.GA9739@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <4DC112A1.5090805@drmicha.warpmail.net>

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 10:47:29AM +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> The only thing I can imagine doing right now is changing
> require_work_tree() to actually cd to toplevel when possible, so that
> (like before) on success we're really within. But that changes cwd, of
> course. In summary, a require_work_tree() now can have three assumptions
> when it returns with success:
> 
> - we have a worktree
> - we are within worktree
> - cwd has not changed
> 
> I'd rather break the last one than the second one, but breaking any may
> be a problem, depending on the caller.

Check out some of the older scripts in contrib/examples. Several of them require_work_tree, but do not cd_to_toplevel immediately; instead, they do it much later for some specific bits.

I didn't go through and analyze what would happen in each case if we did the cd_to_toplevel first. I suspect some of it would be pretty mild breakage (like "git commit -F foo" not finding "foo"). But it would be breakage nonetheless.

-Peff