From: Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2023 19:42:44 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] setup: recognize bare repositories with packed-refs
Message-ID: <ZWTxNBcF1wLufJPj@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+we5Gqp2nhoXyqJKJiXQMDx-ZXcnNGHu3wnwERWREng2XHHuQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 2023.11.20 17:31, Glen Choo wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 7:24 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > Adam Majer <adamm@zombino.com> writes:
> >
> > > In a garbage collected bare git repository, the refs/ subdirectory is
> > > empty.  In use-cases when such a repository is directly added into
> > > another repository, it no longer is detected as valid.
> >
> > Josh & Glen [*], isn't this a layout that we  explicitly discourage and
> > eventually plan to forbid anyway?
> 
> If my recollection of [1] serves me correctly, we didn't come to a
> strong conclusion on whether or not to forbid bare repositories in the
> working tree, particularly because it would leave existing repos (like
> Git LFS) high and dry. Though personally, I'd be happy to see a
> version of Git that forbade bare repositories in the working tree.
> 
> I don't really recall the bare repo tracing bits, so I'll leave that to Josh.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/kl6lsfqpygsj.fsf@chooglen-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com/

Yeah, my understanding was that we don't want to forbid bare
repositories outright, which is why we have the config option to let
end-users choose what to do with them.