From: Patrick Steinhardt Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2026 16:03:12 GMT Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 4/4] setup: communicate why a directory is not a valid git directory Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260929102513.712181-5-kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com> On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 03:55:10PM +0530, Kaartic Sivaraam wrote: > At the moment, there are a few scenarios in which the error message > surrounding an invalid Git repository is a bit blunt: > > $ GIT_OBJECT_DIRECTORY=/does/not/exist git --git-dir repo.git rev-parse --is-bare-repository > fatal: not a git repository: 'repo.git' > > In this case, even though repo.git is a valid Git repository, > we get an output saying it is not since the GIT_OBJECT_DIRECTORY > does not point to a valid object directory. At the moment, the > user is on their own in figuring this out. > > Instead, make it more easy for users to figure such issues s/more easy/easier/ > particularly in cases where they have explicitly specified > a Git directory. This intends to improve the error reporting UX > by clarifying why the specified repository is not considered valid. Which I think is a good motivation. > We achieve this by means of using the new helper > is_git_directory_verbose() that has been introduced. With the > same, we get a more helpful error message as follows: > > $ GIT_OBJECT_DIRECTORY=/does/not/exist git --git-dir repo.git rev-parse --is-bare-repository > fatal: not a git repository: 'repo.git' > reason: cannot access object directory '/does/not/exist' set via $GIT_OBJECT_DIRECTORY Having a separate "reason:" line feels a bit off to me, but that may be subjective. I'd have preferred to have it on the same line, or maybe first have "error:" followed by "fatal:". > diff --git a/setup.c b/setup.c > index a0fb68f7f6..a0d3c0c5bb 100644 > --- a/setup.c > +++ b/setup.c > @@ -1195,6 +1195,7 @@ static void repo_discover_explicit_gitdir(struct repo_discovery *discovery, > int *nongit_ok) > { > const char *work_tree_env = getenv(GIT_WORK_TREE_ENVIRONMENT); > + struct strbuf invalid_gitdir_reason = STRBUF_INIT; Nit, please feel free to ignore: I'd just have called this `errbuf`. Patrick