From: Lucas Seiki Oshiro <lucasseikioshiro@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2026 21:02:46 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC][GSoC][PATCH] attr: use local repository state in read_attr
Message-ID: <E605A7F6-AF4D-463F-8316-6BE69AFE0369@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20260207114007.40-1-kumarayushjha123@gmail.com>

Hi Ayush!

Thanks for your interest in helping git-repo-info, even though
this second patch changes the focus. It was my GSoC project last
year. 

Nitpick: there are two [PATCH] in the subject, and usually we use
only one subject prefix. I also think that this could be a v2 of
your first patch [1]. This way, this subject should be:
"[RFC GSoC PATCH v2] attr: use local repository state in read_attr".

Tip: use `--subject-prefix='RFC GSoC PATCH'` in this case, and
set `format.subjectPrefix='GSoC PATCH'` for your future GSoC
patches.

> read_attr() currently relies on is_bare_repository(), which
> implicitly depends on the global the_repository.

So, wouldn't it be better to make is_bare_repository depend
on a `struct repository *repo` instead of `the_repository`?

I don't know how feasible it is to do that, but it seems to
me that your change could benefit other places that depend
on that function.


> + int is_bare;
> + int is_bare_cfg = -1;
> +
> + repo_config_get_bool(istate->repo, "core.bare", &is_bare_cfg);

This function returns 0 when the config key is found. If the key
can't be found, it returns 1 and doesn't touch `is_bare_cfg`.
This means that if "core.bare" doesn't exist (which is unlikely,
but, who knows...) we'll proceed with is_bare_cfg = -1, and...

> + is_bare = is_bare_cfg && !repo_get_work_tree(istate->repo);

since -1 is a truthy value in C, then in this case we're
deciding it based on having or not a work tree. I don't know if
someone with more experience than me see something wrong with
this but it seems ok to me. However, I found this way a little
confusing to read. Perhaps it would be clearer if it was written
like this:

int is_bare;

if (repo_config_get_bool(istate->repo, "core.bare", &is_bare_cfg))
	is_bare = !repo_get_work_tree(istate->repo);


[1] 20260206152002.1244-1-kumarayushjha123@gmail.com