From: Jay Soffian <jaysoffian+git@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:06:46 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] allow setting GIT_WORK_TREE to "no work tree"
Message-ID: <76718490802071006j9eaa4bctedc18f4a62e2b91c@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.1.00.0802071231540.8543@racer.site>

On Feb 7, 2008 7:33 AM, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, Jay Soffian wrote:
>
> > Is using something like "__GIT_WORK_TREE_NOT_SET__" that terrible?
>
> Yes.  First: it looks more like a C constant than a proper environment
> variable.  Second: what to do _sanely_, when both GIT_WORK_TREE and
> GIT_WORK_TREE_NOT_SET are true?

Sorry I was unclear. The discussion was about using a special value to
denote "this is not set." So I meant something like:

GIT_WORK_TREE="__GIT_WORK_TREE_NOT_SET"

There may not be precedent in git, but it is not unusual to use a
double-underbar prefix to denote private names and/or values. While in
theory a user could have a directory named as such, it would seem
highly unlikely. This looks a little cleaner to me than using ":", "
", or "/dev/null".

j.