# "warning: Updating the currently checked out branch may cause confusion" on bare repositories 5 messages from 2010-01-18 to 2010-01-19. Participants: Adam Megacz, Shawn O. Pearce, Jeff King. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/22276 ## Adam Megacz, 2010-01-18 22:41 Subject: "warning: Updating the currently checked out branch may cause confusion" on bare repositories Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xuu2ska3doix.fsf%40nowhere.com ``` It seems that the message "warning: Updating the currently checked out branch may cause confusion" is unnecessary when pushing to a bare "myproject.git" repository (instead of a "myproject/.git" repository). Is this the case? If so, perhaps the warning should be omitted when the target is a bare repository. - a ``` ## Shawn O. Pearce, 2010-01-19 06:29 Subject: Re: "warning: Updating the currently checked out branch may cause confusion" on bare repositories Message-ID: <20100119062904.GB23212@spearce.org> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20100119062904.GB23212%40spearce.org In-Reply-To: ``` Adam Megacz wrote: > > It seems that the message "warning: Updating the currently checked out > branch may cause confusion" is unnecessary when pushing to a bare > "myproject.git" repository (instead of a "myproject/.git" repository). > > Is this the case? > > If so, perhaps the warning should be omitted when the target is a bare > repository. That should already be the case. Did you create the bare repository by taking a copy of a non-bare's .git directory? Check your bare repository's config file and see if core.bare = false, if so set it to true to signal it really is bare. -- Shawn. ``` ## Adam Megacz, 2010-01-19 18:55 Subject: Re: "warning: Updating the currently checked out branch may cause confusion" on bare repositories Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xuu2my093owy.fsf%40nowhere.com In-Reply-To: <20100119062904.GB23212@spearce.org> ``` "Shawn O. Pearce" writes: > That should already be the case. Did you create the bare repository > by taking a copy of a non-bare's .git directory? Check your bare > repository's config file and see if core.bare = false, if so set > it to true to signal it really is bare. Hrm, is there a reason why this is explicitly configured rather than detected? I was under the impression that you could create a bare repository by simply throwing away the working tree and renaming ".git" to any other name, but I guess I was wrong. - a ``` ## Shawn O. Pearce, 2010-01-19 18:59 Subject: Re: "warning: Updating the currently checked out branch may cause confusion" on bare repositories Message-ID: <20100119185906.GF23466@spearce.org> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20100119185906.GF23466%40spearce.org In-Reply-To: ``` Adam Megacz wrote: > "Shawn O. Pearce" writes: > > That should already be the case. Did you create the bare repository > > by taking a copy of a non-bare's .git directory? Check your bare > > repository's config file and see if core.bare = false, if so set > > it to true to signal it really is bare. > > Hrm, is there a reason why this is explicitly configured rather than > detected? I don't know why we do this. I think its because the guessing logic can guess wrong sometimes. > I was under the impression that you could create a bare repository by > simply throwing away the working tree and renaming ".git" to any other > name, but I guess I was wrong. If you delete the setting from the configuration file, Git usually almost always guesses correctly. :-) Its rare to see it fail. But I think it can fail if you create a file called HEAD in the top level of your source code tree. (For example.) -- Shawn. ``` ## Jeff King, 2010-01-19 22:43 Subject: Re: "warning: Updating the currently checked out branch may cause confusion" on bare repositories Message-ID: <20100119224343.GA11758@coredump.intra.peff.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20100119224343.GA11758%40coredump.intra.peff.net In-Reply-To: <20100119185906.GF23466@spearce.org> ``` On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:59:06AM -0800, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > Adam Megacz wrote: > > "Shawn O. Pearce" writes: > > > That should already be the case. Did you create the bare repository > > > by taking a copy of a non-bare's .git directory? Check your bare > > > repository's config file and see if core.bare = false, if so set > > > it to true to signal it really is bare. > > > > Hrm, is there a reason why this is explicitly configured rather than > > detected? > > I don't know why we do this. I think its because the guessing > logic can guess wrong sometimes. Yup, although I am having trouble finding any actual discussion of when it can go wrong. There is some mention here: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/35993 and a little bit here in the 1.5.0 release notes: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/39612 But the latter talks about the heuristic being "does it end with .git", which I don't think we actually use anymore. So who knows if the heuristic failures are even trigger-able anymore. I tried looking at the setup code for an answer, but my eyes started bleeding from the horrible spaghetti code and I couldn't make out any of the text. > Its rare to see it fail. But I think it can fail if you create > a file called HEAD in the top level of your source code tree. > (For example.) I don't think that would do it. When looking for a git dir we check for a well-formed HEAD, as well as objects and refs directories. The is_bare check seems to be more about "did we actually find a workdir" these days. -Peff ```