Re: Alternates corruption issue

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jan 31, 2012, 21:47 UTC
Message-ID: <20120131214740.GA2465@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20120131214047.GA13547@burratino>

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 03:40:47PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> 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?

Yes, but I would expect the lookup to be the same.

Show 8 quoted lines

> One is the implementation of (A):
> 
> 	cd foo
> 	git rev-parse --git-dir
> 
> The other implements (B):
> 
> 	git ls-remote foo

Right. But would you expect:

  git ls-remote foo

to behave the same as:

  cd foo
  git ls-remote .

and would you furthermore expect that to behave the same as:

  cd foo
  git rev-parse --git-dir

Maybe I am crazy, but I see all of them as ways of specifying "I am interested in repository foo", and any lookup magic should be the same in all cases.

Show 5 quoted lines

> 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.

Yes, I think we are dealing with an insane corner case.

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

Why?

-Peff