# [PATCH] filter-branch: really allow running in a bare repository 4 messages from 2009-02-03 to 2009-02-03. Participants: Johannes Schindelin, Eric Kidd. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/17535 ## Johannes Schindelin, 2009-02-03 18:10 Subject: [PATCH] filter-branch: really allow running in a bare repository Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/alpine.DEB.1.00.0902031910001.9822%40pacific.mpi-cbg.de In-Reply-To: ``` When checking if running in a bare repository, the work tree has to be reset, otherwise we will be checking the temporary state, which is always non-bare. This commit augments a4661b0(git-filter-branch.sh: Allow running in bare repositories). Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin --- git-filter-branch.sh | 24 ++++++++++++------------ 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/git-filter-branch.sh b/git-filter-branch.sh index eb62f71..8cbce4e 100755 --- a/git-filter-branch.sh +++ b/git-filter-branch.sh @@ -469,19 +469,19 @@ rm -rf "$tempdir" trap - 0 +unset GIT_DIR GIT_WORK_TREE GIT_INDEX_FILE +test -z "$ORIG_GIT_DIR" || { + GIT_DIR="$ORIG_GIT_DIR" && export GIT_DIR +} +test -z "$ORIG_GIT_WORK_TREE" || { + GIT_WORK_TREE="$ORIG_GIT_WORK_TREE" && + export GIT_WORK_TREE +} +test -z "$ORIG_GIT_INDEX_FILE" || { + GIT_INDEX_FILE="$ORIG_GIT_INDEX_FILE" && + export GIT_INDEX_FILE +} if [ "$(is_bare_repository)" = false ]; then - unset GIT_DIR GIT_WORK_TREE GIT_INDEX_FILE - test -z "$ORIG_GIT_DIR" || { - GIT_DIR="$ORIG_GIT_DIR" && export GIT_DIR - } - test -z "$ORIG_GIT_WORK_TREE" || { - GIT_WORK_TREE="$ORIG_GIT_WORK_TREE" && - export GIT_WORK_TREE - } - test -z "$ORIG_GIT_INDEX_FILE" || { - GIT_INDEX_FILE="$ORIG_GIT_INDEX_FILE" && - export GIT_INDEX_FILE - } git read-tree -u -m HEAD fi -- 1.6.1.2.574.g140d5 ``` ## Eric Kidd, 2009-02-03 19:31 Subject: Re: [PATCH] filter-branch: really allow running in a bare repository Message-ID: <431341160902031131s63f34665ne9db25d8a4d1f0f9@mail.gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/431341160902031131s63f34665ne9db25d8a4d1f0f9%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: ``` On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > When checking if running in a bare repository, the work tree has to be > reset, otherwise we will be checking the temporary state, which is > always non-bare. Just a few minutes after you posted this patch, I posted a nearly-identical fix for the same issue: http://marc.info/?l=git&m=123368695831812&w=2 (My patch includes a test case, too, but it's not very important.) This raises another interesting question: Why doesn't 'git filter-branch' actually check whether subcommands succeed? Cheers, Eric ``` ## Johannes Schindelin, 2009-02-03 20:46 Subject: Re: [PATCH] filter-branch: really allow running in a bare repository Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/alpine.DEB.1.00.0902032145250.9822%40pacific.mpi-cbg.de In-Reply-To: <431341160902031131s63f34665ne9db25d8a4d1f0f9@mail.gmail.com> ``` Hi, On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Eric Kidd wrote: > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Johannes Schindelin > wrote: > > When checking if running in a bare repository, the work tree has to be > > reset, otherwise we will be checking the temporary state, which is > > always non-bare. > > Just a few minutes after you posted this patch, I posted a > nearly-identical fix for the same issue: > > http://marc.info/?l=git&m=123368695831812&w=2 > > (My patch includes a test case, too, but it's not very important.) So clearly yours is superior. > This raises another interesting question: Why doesn't 'git > filter-branch' actually check whether subcommands succeed? That's unintentional; AFAIR there was a "set -e" in cg-admin-rewritehist that I tried to do away with by introducing explicit '&&' conjunctions where needed. So all those unchecked subcommands are bugs. Thanks, Dscho ``` ## Eric Kidd, 2009-02-03 20:56 Subject: Re: [PATCH] filter-branch: really allow running in a bare repository Message-ID: <431341160902031256k689bb0efo766b4a4f2e356d3d@mail.gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/431341160902031256k689bb0efo766b4a4f2e356d3d%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <431341160902031131s63f34665ne9db25d8a4d1f0f9@mail.gmail.com> ``` On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Eric Kidd wrote: > Just a few minutes after you posted this patch, I posted a > nearly-identical fix for the same issue: > > http://marc.info/?l=git&m=123368695831812&w=2 A point of clarification: These two bug fixes are independent, and I was fighting with my mail queue when I saw Johannes' patch. Cheers, Eric ```