Re: Git Bug report

> Phil Hord <phil.hord@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Oct 5, 2011 9:14 PM, "SZEDER Gábor" <szeder@ira.uka.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 05:44:54PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> > SZEDER Gábor <szeder@ira.uka.de> writes:
>>> >
>>> > > And what about unreadable .git files?
>>> >
>>> > Having then inside a working tree is so sick that I do not think it
>>> > deserves consideration.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure why is this any different than having a .git directory
>>> that is not a repository inside a working tree.
>>
>> What should happen here? Ignore it and keep searching? Or fail?
>>
>> I just added some common gitfile detection code and I noticed that the
>> oddball case now is the one that dies on error rather than continuing to
>> search for alternate explanations.  I left the oddball behavior assuming it
>> is desireable, but now you have me rethinking it.
>
> Yeah, after thinking about it a bit more, whenever we see ".git" during
> the upward discovery process, we should always warn if we know it is _not_
> a GIT_DIR before looking for another ".git" at higher levels, as anything
> in that directory cannot be added. If we cannot tell if it is or is not
> a GIT_DIR, we should error out---the reason we cannot tell most likely is
> because we cannot read it, and such a file, if it is not a GIT_DIR, cannot
> be tracked in the real GIT_DIR at a higher level, and if it is a GIT_DIR,
> we cannot use it to record updates or inspect existing history.
>
> How's that sound as a guideline?