Re: [PATCH 09/11] Provide API access to init_db()
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Mar 9, 2008, 20:43 UTC
- Message-ID
- <alpine.LSU.1.00.0803092143370.3975@racer.site>
- In-Reply-To
- <alpine.LNX.1.00.0803081840070.19665@iabervon.org>
Hi,
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
Show 20 quoted lines
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > On Sat, 8 Mar 2008, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > > > > > The caller first calls set_git_dir() to specify the GIT_DIR, and then > > > calls init_db() to initialize it. This also cleans up various parts of > > > the code to account for the fact that everything is done with GIT_DIR > > > set, so it's unnecessary to pass the specified directory around. > > > > I think the most controversial part is that you change the way it is > > determined if the repository is a bare one. It might have the same > > result (I do not have time to check it...), but the computation is > > performed differently. > > It's actually doing the same computation; the difference is how the result > is reported. Mine commits to the repo being non-bare if it doesn't think > it's bare, which the current code leaves as "we don't know, assume > non-bare". But since we actually create a work tree if we guess it's > non-bare, it really is non-bare. So then the later code can assume it's > either 0 or 1, and not worry about -1 being equivalent to 0.
Okay.
Thanks, Dscho