Re: [PATCH] Make git log work for git CWD outside of work tree

> Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> I think this is much more than just .mailmap, though. For instance, I
>>> have noticed a similar problem with .gitattributes:
>>
>> Urgh. assuming that we should not read .gitattributes if there's no
>> worktree to read from (similar to the "defaults to .git" situation),
>> how about
>>
>>  - if mailmap stuff is requested, setup worktree, or die trying
>>  - if worktree is detected, but setup code does not jump to it, do it
>>  - if no worktree is detected, tell git-log to stop reading .gitattributes
>
> My gut reaction is that we are doing something wrong once we start
> saying "if mailmap stuff is requested".  This is not about .mailmap
> but is about how sanely the paths relative to the root of the
> working tree (which includes a path in the index, or comparing
> $commit:$path with $path in the working tree) can be named by any
> subcommand of Git.

> Can't we model this after how setup_git_directory_gently() gives the
> subcommands a choice?  While the majority of subcommands do not call
> the _gently() variant and die when we are not in a repository, the
> rest do use it and continue after learning that they are outside a
> repository.

> Perhaps we want a new bit GOTO_WORK_TREE_ROOT that is orthogonal to
> NEED_WORK_TREE to tell the codepath that calls cmd_foo() to always
> move to the root of the working tree (if there is one), regaredless
> of the behaviour f3bb8b4b84 documents.  I have a strong suspicion
> that we didn't _care_ about a silly use case where GIT_WORK_TREE is
> specified and the command is started from somewhere completely
> unrelated to that location, and the users with such a silly use case
> didn't care either what Git does to the files in the working tree,
> i.e. what you quoted in your previous message
>
>     "11. When user's cwd is outside worktree, cwd remains unchanged,
>         prefix is NULL."
>
>     This behavior probably started long before my topic though, mine was
>     more of documentation, making worktree detection more consistent. It's
>
> was not describing the design, but just describing whatever random
> thing the code happened to be doing.