From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:40:47 GMT
Subject: Re: Alternates corruption issue
Message-ID: <20120131214047.GA13547@burratino>
In-Reply-To: <20120131204417.GA30969@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King wrote:

> No, it does not match. While the sequence I outlined above makes the
> most sense to me, it does not match what setup_git_directory does, which
> prefers "foo/.git" to using "foo" as a bare repo. I think being
> consistent between all of the lookup points makes sense. The patch took
> the least-invasive approach and aligned clone and enter_repo with
> setup_git_directory.
>
> However, we could also tweak setup_git_directory to prefer bare repos
> over ".git" to keep things consistent. While it makes me feel good from
> a theoretical standpoint (because the rules above seem simple and
> intuitive to me), I'm not sure it's a good idea in practice.

Wait, don't these two functions serve two completely different purposes?

One is the implementation of (A):

	cd foo
	git rev-parse --git-dir

The other implements (B):

	git ls-remote foo

If "foo" is actually a bare repository that moonlights as a worktree for
a non-bare repository, then:

 1) Whoever set up these directories is completely insane[*].  Maybe we
    should emit a warning.

 2) As a naive user, I would expect (A) to give a different result
    from (B).

Hope that helps,
Jonathan

[*] ok, ok, they can be confused instead of insane:
http://bugs.debian.org/399041