Re: Definition of "the Git repository"

> On 2021/06/28 11:24, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > Kevin Buckley wrote:
> > 
> >> 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.
> > 
> > Does it?
> > 
> > Suppose you have three directories, each with exactly the same contents
> > in their corresponding .git directory, the only difference is the
> > .git/index file:
> > 
> >   a) No .git/index file at all
> >   b) The .git/index file doesn't have anything staged
> >   c) The .git/index file contains some staged changes
> > 
> > Do you really consider them three different repositories?
> > 
> > In my mind the staging area is where you put stuff in preparation for
> > the commit. The commit is part of the repository, the staging area
> > isn't.
> > 
> 
> I think I do consider them as different, yes, but in the sense that,
> because the contents of any working directory can change in isolation
> to the others, they have become different instances (perhaps clones?)
> of the same repository.
> 
> Let's say I make two commits, that resulted in the same state of the
> files in the working directory, but I make them in different order
> in two of the working directories.
> 
> Clearly I need to sync the two different repositories in order to gain
> a consistency across them, and that suggets, to me, that they should
> be thought of as different.

> As to the staging area,
> 
> again, for me, Git has an understanding of a "staging area" based on its
> inspection of the state of the working directory and a comparison of that
> state with what it knows has been committed.