Re: [PATCH] setup_git_directory: Setup cwd properly if worktree is found

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote:
>
> > On Nov 12, 2007 6:57 PM, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > > But what about setup_git_directory_gently()?  If the working tree is
> > > overridden by the config, this function is still bogus, right?
> >
> > Hmm.. thinking a little bit more. I guess you're right because
> > GIT_WORK_TREE takes precedence over core.worktree. Maybe some more bits
> > for check_repository_format_version(). Tough decision because, from the
> > value of inside_work_tree, we don't know if we can safely skip
> > overriding inside_work_tree.
>
> I was thinking about adding check_repository_format_version() and a check
> for inside_work_tree < 0 with obvious handling in two places, probably as
> a function:  first, when we have a gitdirenv but no work_tree_env, and
> second, at the end of _gently() when we found a git dir but only if
> work_tree_env was not set.
>
> > > As far as I see, setup_git_directory_gently() only works correctly
> > > when core.worktree is _not_ set, unless GIT_WORK_TREE is set (which is
> > > supposed to override the config setting).  Note: I treat GIT_WORK_TREE
> > > the same as --work-tree, since at that time they are identical.
> > >
> > > Maybe the config stuff has to move into _gently()?
> >
> > Well, it could be a bit more complicated because you need to know
> > GIT_DIR first before reading config. I'd rather not move as _gently()
> > is complicated already.
>
> AFAICT it is not a question of complexity, but of correctness.  Wouldn't
> you agree that the prefix _gently() returns is wrong if we don't fix it?
>
> Besides, it might be needed anyway if we are serious about the version
> check.  This check, however, would have to be done _whenever_ we found a
> git directory, not only when work_tree_env is NULL.