Re: [PATCH] worktree: update is_bare heuristics
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Apr 18, 2019, 09:59 UTC
- Message-ID
- <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1904181157010.46@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqo954gira.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
Hi,
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 32 quoted lines
> Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> writes:
>
> > When "git branch -D <name>" is run, Git usually first checks if that
> > branch is currently checked out. But this check is not performed if the
> > Git directory of that repository is not at "<repo>/.git", which is the
> > case if that repository is a submodule that has its Git directory stored
> > as "super/.git/modules/<repo>", for example.
> >
> > This is because get_main_worktree() in worktree.c sets is_bare on a
> > worktree only using the heuristic that a repo is bare if the worktree's
> > path ends in "/.git", and not bare otherwise. This is_bare code was
> > introduced in 92718b7438 ("worktree: add details to the worktree
> > struct", 2015-10-08), following a pre-core.bare heuristic. This patch
> > does 2 things:
> >
> > - Teach get_main_worktree() to use is_bare_repository() instead,
> > introduced in 7d1864ce67 ("Introduce is_bare_repository() and
> > core.bare configuration variable", 2007-01-07) and updated in
> > e90fdc39b6 ("Clean up work-tree handling", 2007-08-01). This solves
> > the "git branch -D <name>" problem described above. However...
> >
> > - If a repository has core.bare=1 but the "git" command is being run
> > from one of its added worktrees, is_bare_repository() returns false
> > (which is fine, since there is a worktree available). However,
> > commands like "git worktree list" currently distinguish between a
> > repository that has core.bare=1 but has a worktree available, and a
> > repository that is truly non-bare (core.bare=0). To preserve this
> > distinction, also check core.bare when setting is_bare. If
> > core.bare=1, trust it, and otherwise, use is_bare_repository().
>
> I am not sure if the latter is worth keeping, but the former
> definitely is a huge improvement, I would imagine.I think that both are improvements, with the former definitely being the more impactful one.
> Somebody did "git branch -D <that-branch>" by accident in a submodule > checkout, or something?
/me shudders at the thought of it
The patch makes tons of sense to me.
Thank you, Dscho