Hi,

I plan to apply to Git for GSoC 2026, and I would like to share a draft proposal for feedback.

The project I am currently most interested in is improving the new `git repo` command, with a primary focus on extending `git repo info` with path-related repository metadata.

My draft is below. I would appreciate feedback on whether this scope looks reasonable, and which parts of the current `git repo` work would make the best starting point.

Thanks, Jialong

---

# Improve `git repo info` by adding repository path metadata

## Name

Jialong Wang

## Email

jerrywang183@yahoo.com

## Preferred project size

175 hours

## About me

My name is Jialong Wang, and I plan to apply to Git for GSoC 2026.

I have been getting familiar with Git’s development workflow by building Git from source, reading the contribution documents, and working on a microproject. As part of that process, I prepared and sent a patch to the Git mailing list.

I am interested in the new `git repo` command because it is user-facing, but also closely tied to Git’s internal repository model. That makes it a good fit for the kind of work I want to do: understanding existing code, discussing design details on the mailing list, and implementing improvements in small, reviewable patches.

Relevant links:

- Microproject discussion thread:
  https://public-inbox.org/git/CAKWWG_nGhD6vqhAS1mkEwBQPrg_YX0+C3-xW=Q3ifFDw4dDviw@mail.gmail.com/
- Microproject patch thread:
  https://public-inbox.org/git/20260315231538.68586-1-jerrywang183@yahoo.com/
- SoC 2026 idea page:
  https://git.github.io/SoC-2026-Ideas/

## Project summary

I would like to work on improving the new `git repo` command, with a primary focus on `git repo info`.

The `git repo` command was introduced to provide a cleaner interface for querying repository metadata. However, several useful path-related values are still mainly accessed through `git rev-parse` and `git rev-parse --git-path`. My proposal is to extend `git repo info` so that it can expose a selected set of those values in a more structured form.

The goal is not to replace `git rev-parse`, but to make `git repo info` more useful as a structured interface for repository path metadata.

## Motivation

Today, scripts and tools still often rely on commands such as:

    git rev-parse --git-dir
    git rev-parse --show-toplevel
    git rev-parse --git-path <path>

These commands are useful, but they were not primarily designed as a structured repository metadata interface.

Since `git repo info` already exists for this purpose, extending it with path-related values would make repository layout information easier to query in a cleaner and more consistent way.

I think this is a good GSoC project because it has clear user value, can be implemented incrementally, and naturally fits Git’s patch-and-review workflow.

## Current context

I am aware that work on path-related `git repo info` fields has already started. There have already been patch series for path keys, category requests, and path formatting. Because of that, I do not want to assume that the work described on the ideas page is still untouched.

One of my first goals during the bonding period would be to review the current state of these discussions carefully, identify what remains open, and refine the project scope based on maintainer feedback. I would rather build on the current direction than duplicate work that is already in progress.

I also think this project should be scoped carefully. The ideas page mentions improvements to both `git repo info` and `git repo structure`, but for a GSoC project I believe it is more realistic to focus first on `git repo info` and only expand beyond that if the main work is in good shape.

## Proposed work

The main objective of this project is to extend `git repo info` with selected repository path values that are currently obtained through `git rev-parse` and `git rev-parse --git-path`.

The work will involve:

1. Studying the current implementation of `git repo info`.
2. Comparing its current output with commonly used `git rev-parse`
   path queries.
3. Identifying a first small set of missing path-related values to add.
4. Discussing output design on the mailing list, especially where there
   are open questions about relative versus absolute paths.
5. Implementing the agreed functionality through small patch series.
6. Adding tests covering the new behavior.
7. Updating documentation if needed.

## Initial scope

The first stage of the project would focus on a small set of commonly used repository path values, for example:

- `git-dir`
- `common-dir`
- `toplevel`
- `superproject-working-tree`

I think these are a good first target because they are already familiar to users through `git rev-parse`, and they provide immediate practical value without requiring a large interface expansion.

Depending on project progress and mailing list feedback, I would then like to extend support to selected values currently accessed through `git rev-parse --git-path`, such as:

- index file
- objects directory
- hooks directory

I do not want to promise every possible path-related key up front. I would rather start with the most straightforward and useful values, get feedback early, and continue from there.

## My approach to scope and quality

One thing I would like to be careful about is not treating this project as a simple checklist of fields to add.

I think the quality of the project will depend on three things:

1. choosing a small set of fields that make sense together,
2. agreeing on a consistent path representation,
3. and making sure the result fits naturally into the existing `git repo`
   design rather than becoming a thin wrapper over `git rev-parse`.

Because of that, I would prefer to make progress in a few coherent batches instead of adding many unrelated keys at once.

I also think it is important to keep room for scope reduction. If some part of the design turns out to be more controversial than expected, I would prefer to complete a smaller, cleaner set of path fields rather than stretching the project too broadly.

## Technical approach

The implementation of `git repo` is primarily in `builtin/repo.c`. The first step would be to understand how `git repo info` currently collects and prints repository metadata, and how that existing structure can be extended without making the interface inconsistent.

Many relevant repository paths are already available internally through helpers such as:

- `repo_get_git_dir()`
- `repo_get_common_dir()`
- `repo_get_work_tree()`

Similarly, `git rev-parse --git-path` already relies on existing path resolution logic. So the work is not about inventing these values from scratch, but about exposing a selected subset of them through `git repo info` in a way that fits its current design.

The first implementation step would be to map existing helpers and path resolution logic to a small set of `repo info` fields. After that, I would extend the output code in `builtin/repo.c` to report those fields in a consistent way.

One of the main design questions is path formatting. The ideas page explicitly mentions the need to decide between relative and absolute paths. I do not want to assume the answer in advance. Instead, I would review the current discussion, compare the behavior of existing commands, and propose a small, consistent approach on the mailing list.

I also expect that some preparatory cleanup or refactoring may be useful before adding new fields. If so, I would keep that work minimal and send it as small separate patches.

## Patch strategy

I expect the implementation to be divided into small patches so that each change can be reviewed independently.

A likely patch strategy would be:

1. small preparatory cleanup if needed
2. add support for a first path-related key or a very small set of keys
3. extend support with additional related keys
4. add or refine tests for the new behavior
5. update documentation if necessary

If existing in-progress series already cover some of these parts, I would adjust the breakdown accordingly and focus on what remains useful and open.

## Tests

Tests would be added to cover the new behavior in common repository setups.

Depending on the exact scope agreed on, test cases may include:

- ordinary repositories
- linked worktrees
- superproject/submodule cases
- cases where path values differ from simple defaults

I would keep the tests focused on observable behavior instead of overfitting them to a particular implementation detail.

## What I will not try to do

To keep the project realistic, I do not plan to:

- redesign all of `git repo`
- fully replace `git rev-parse`
- implement every possible repository path query
- work on both `git repo info` and `git repo structure` at full scope in
  the same project

The project should stay focused on a well-defined subset of path-related metadata for `git repo info`.

## Expected deliverables

By the end of the project, I expect to deliver:

- support for a useful set of path-related values in `git repo info`
- tests covering the new functionality
- documentation updates if needed
- one or more patch series discussed and refined on the Git mailing list

## Timeline

### Community bonding period

- Study `builtin/repo.c` and the current `git repo info` implementation
- Review recent and ongoing mailing list discussions related to `git repo`
- Compare current `git repo info` behavior with `git rev-parse`
- Refine the exact scope with mentors and mailing list feedback

### Phase 1

- Implement a first small batch of path-related values
- Send the first patch series
- Address review comments
- Add tests for the first batch

### Phase 2

- Implement additional agreed path values
- Continue design discussion if needed
- Refine implementation and tests based on review feedback

### Phase 3

- Complete remaining agreed work
- Update documentation if necessary
- Rework earlier patches if needed for consistency
- Prepare a final summary of the work

### Buffer time

- Handle review delays
- Fix regressions or edge cases
- Narrow scope if some planned work turns out to be too large

## Risks and mitigation

One risk is that design discussion may take longer than expected, especially around path representation and output structure.

To reduce that risk, I would keep the patch series small and prioritize the least controversial values first.

Another risk is overlap with work already in progress. If that happens, I would adjust the project scope to avoid duplication and focus on what is still useful and open.

## Why I think I am a good fit

I have already started learning Git’s normal contribution workflow through a microproject, including building Git from source, running tests, preparing a patch, and sending it to the mailing list.

This project fits the kind of work I want to do in Git: understanding existing code, discussing interface details on the mailing list, and implementing improvements incrementally in small patches.

## References

- SoC 2026 idea page:
  https://git.github.io/SoC-2026-Ideas/

- General application information:
  https://git.github.io/General-Application-Information/

- `git repo` documentation:
  https://git-scm.com/docs/git-repo

- `git rev-parse` documentation:
  https://git-scm.com/docs/git-rev-parse

- `git-sizer` project:
  https://github.com/github/git-sizer

- Recent patch series adding path-related support to `git repo`:
  https://public-inbox.org/git/20260228224252.72788-1-lucasseikioshiro@gmail.com/

- More recent work-in-progress series for category/path keys and
  `--path-format`:
  https://public-inbox.org/git/pull.2208.v6.git.git.1772428548.gitgitgadget@gmail.com/

- Recent GSoC proposal thread on improving the new `git repo` command:
  https://public-inbox.org/git/20260303140732.16886-1-pushkarkumarsingh1970@gmail.com/

- Another recent GSoC proposal thread on improving/extending `git repo`:
  https://public-inbox.org/git/CA+rGoLd-1Mb5JG1H1PvE-kyjdznrLVFjwQiMLHtd2ETQ-igmXg@mail.gmail.com/

- Recent proposal thread focused on the same SoC idea:
  https://public-inbox.org/git/CAO_P5U3g_+RpnDUmEv_qX-3GVhpxLV97eMxP1apERc0KU_95tQ@mail.gmail.com/

- Recent discussion around `git repo structure` enhancements:
  https://public-inbox.org/git/CAO_P5U2f4MD-URre+4ocC=YQ570hr03pZHDk1jvuSOKx4aLOCA@mail.gmail.com/

- Microproject discussion thread:
  https://public-inbox.org/git/CAKWWG_nGhD6vqhAS1mkEwBQPrg_YX0+C3-xW=Q3ifFDw4dDviw@mail.gmail.com/

- Microproject patch thread:
  https://public-inbox.org/git/20260315231538.68586-1-jerrywang183@yahoo.com/

- Review on the microproject patch thread:
  https://public-inbox.org/git/CAOLa=ZTpfHUySnMgCFMnvo2JcRSv8zqFP-cLFSs+Ab5Cy2zsvg@mail.gmail.com/

Jialong Wang <jerrywang183@yahoo.com> writes:

Perhaps it would be nice to give a few lines about what the microproject discussion thread and patch thread are about.

It also helps if you can state the current status, maybe look at other proposals for examples around this.

It would also make sense to have some sense of what that direction may look like and add that to the proposal.

That's a fair assessment, what we do like to see is how you plan to structure the goals and possibly future work into the timeline. Reading on.

Generally each commit should be self contained with tests and documentation, so perhaps 5, 6, 7 are a single point with subheadings?

Something I would like to see is how we can leverage the existing tests for `git-rev-parse(1)` and use them.

wouldn't documentation be definitely needed? ;)

We generally do timelines in terms of weeks of GSoC. So it would be nice to see that mapping over the phases mentioned here.

Regards, Karthik

Thanks for the feedback.

This is very helpful. I will revise the proposal to make the current direction, the relationship to my microproject work, and the timeline more concrete.

Thanks, Jialong

Hi Karthik,

Thanks for the detailed feedback. I revised the proposal draft to make the current status, intended scope, patch breakdown, and use of existing tests clearer. The updated draft is below.

Improve Git Repo Info By Adding Repository Path Metadata

Name Jialong Wang

Email jerrywang183@yahoo.com

Preferred project size 175 hours

About me

My name is Jialong Wang, and I plan to apply to Git for GSoC 2026.

I have been getting familiar with Git's development workflow by building Git from source, reading the contribution documents, and working on a microproject. My microproject focused on improving corrupt patch location reporting in git apply and git am. That work has already gone through mailing list review, including comments from Karthik Nayak and Junio C Hamano, and it gave me direct experience with rerolling patches, updating tests, and using CI to catch gaps that I had missed locally.

My broader programming experience has mainly involved systems-oriented software, where I have had to read existing code, trace behavior through unfamiliar paths, and make targeted changes without disrupting surrounding logic.

At this point, my recent Git contributions around this microproject are:

1. an initial microproject patch series to report the location of
   corrupt patches more clearly
2. a follow-up patch to report input locations in header parsing errors
   in apply.c
3. a follow-up patch to report input locations in binary and garbage
   patch error paths in apply.c

This has also helped me get comfortable with the normal Git workflow of starting with a small change, responding to review, and then continuing with a logically related follow-up.

I am interested in the new git repo command because it is user-facing, but also closely tied to Git's internal repository model. That makes it a good fit for the kind of work I want to do: understanding existing code, discussing design details on the mailing list, and implementing improvements in small, reviewable patches.

Relevant links

Microproject discussion thread This thread asked whether improving corrupt patch location reporting was a suitable microproject and helped me choose the work. https://public-inbox.org/git/CAKWWG_nGhD6vqhAS1mkEwBQPrg_YX0+C3-xW=Q3ifFDw4dDviw@mail.gmail.com/

Microproject patch thread This thread contains the patch itself, review, and rerolls for the corrupt patch location reporting work. https://public-inbox.org/git/20260315231538.68586-1-jerrywang183@yahoo.com/

Follow-up patch This follow-up patch extends the same idea to header parsing errors in apply.c. https://public-inbox.org/git/20260316195847.92386-1-jerrywang183@yahoo.com/

Second follow-up patch
This follow-up patch extends the same idea to binary and garbage patch
error paths in apply.c and has also been sent to the mailing list. I
will add the public archive link once it is indexed.
Subject: [GSoC PATCH] apply: report input location in binary and garbage patch errors

SoC 2026 idea page https://git.github.io/SoC-2026-Ideas/

Project summary

I would like to work on improving the new git repo command, with a primary focus on git repo info.

The git repo command was introduced to provide a cleaner interface for querying repository metadata. However, several useful path-related values are still mainly accessed through git rev-parse and git rev-parse --git-path. My proposal is to extend git repo info so that it can expose a selected set of those values in a more structured form.

The goal is not to replace git rev-parse, but to make git repo info more useful as a structured interface for repository path metadata.

Motivation

Today, scripts and tools still often rely on commands such as:

git rev-parse --git-dir git rev-parse --show-toplevel git rev-parse --git-path <path>

These commands are useful, but they were not primarily designed as a structured repository metadata interface.

Since git repo info already exists for this purpose, extending it with path-related values would make repository layout information easier to query in a cleaner and more consistent way.

I think this is a good GSoC project because it has clear user value, can be implemented incrementally, and naturally fits Git's patch-and-review workflow.

Current context

I am aware that work on path-related git repo info fields has already started. There have already been patch series for path keys, category requests, and path formatting. Because of that, I do not want to assume that the work described on the ideas page is still untouched.

One of my first goals during the bonding period would be to review the current state of these discussions carefully, identify what remains open, and refine the project scope based on maintainer feedback. I would rather build on the current direction than duplicate work that is already in progress.

My recent apply.c follow-up patches are separate from git repo itself, but they have already helped me get comfortable with Git's mailing list process, with responding to maintainer comments, and with organizing small changes into follow-up patches instead of overloading a single series. I expect to approach git repo work in the same way.

At the moment, the direction that seems most realistic to me is to start with a small set of layout-related fields that already have clear equivalents in git rev-parse, such as git-dir, common-dir, toplevel, and superproject-working-tree. I would prefer to begin there before taking on broader questions such as category-wide output or possible git repo structure extensions.

More concretely, if the current discussions do not point in a different direction, I would expect my first implementation work to focus on a small initial series that adds one or a few of these layout-related fields to git repo info, together with tests and documentation for the same behavior. I would treat that first series as the point where the community can judge whether the field naming, path representation, and overall shape of the interface look right before I continue to a second batch.

In other words, my current preference is:

1. first settle a small batch of repo info path fields with clear
   rev-parse equivalents
2. then extend to a second batch of agreed path-related values from
   rev-parse --git-path
3. only after that consider whether category keys or other nearby repo
   info improvements are worth taking on as stretch work

I also think this project should be scoped carefully. The ideas page mentions improvements to both git repo info and git repo structure, but for a GSoC project I believe it is more realistic to focus first on git repo info and only expand beyond that if the main work is in good shape.

Proposed work

The main objective of this project is to extend git repo info with selected repository path values that are currently obtained through git rev-parse and git rev-parse --git-path.

I expect the work to proceed in four connected parts:

1. Review the current implementation and ongoing mailing list
   discussions, then narrow the initial scope to a first small batch of
   path-related fields.
2. Discuss output design on the mailing list, especially where there are
   open questions about relative versus absolute paths and how the new
   fields should fit the existing interface.
3. Implement the agreed functionality through small patch series, with
   each patch or small patch group carrying its own tests and any
   documentation updates for the user-visible behavior.
4. If the first batch is in good shape, extend support to a second
   agreed batch of path-related fields.

Initial scope

The first stage of the project would focus on a small set of commonly used repository path values, for example:

git-dir common-dir toplevel superproject-working-tree

I think these are a good first target because they are already familiar to users through git rev-parse, and they provide immediate practical value without requiring a large interface expansion.

If I had to choose an initial implementation order today, I would most likely start with git-dir, common-dir, and toplevel first, because they seem like the most direct and broadly useful candidates. I would then look at superproject-working-tree and selected git-path style values after the first review round, rather than trying to push all of them in the same initial series.

Depending on project progress and mailing list feedback, I would then like to extend support to selected values currently accessed through git rev-parse --git-path, such as:

index file objects directory hooks directory

I do not want to promise every possible path-related key up front. I would rather start with the most straightforward and useful values, get feedback early, and continue from there.

If the core path-related work is in good shape, possible later work could include small extensions around category keys or closely related repo info behavior. I do not want to commit to that up front, but I do want the timeline to make room for it as stretch work rather than as a core deliverable.

My approach to scope and quality

One thing I would like to be careful about is not treating this project as a simple checklist of fields to add.

I think the quality of the project will depend on three things:

1. choosing a small set of fields that make sense together
2. agreeing on a consistent path representation
3. making sure the result fits naturally into the existing git repo
   design rather than becoming a thin wrapper over git rev-parse

Because of that, I would prefer to make progress in a few coherent batches instead of adding many unrelated keys at once.

I also think it is important to keep room for scope reduction. If some part of the design turns out to be more controversial than expected, I would prefer to complete a smaller, cleaner set of path fields rather than stretching the project too broadly.

Technical approach

The implementation of git repo is primarily in builtin/repo.c. The first step would be to understand how git repo info currently collects and prints repository metadata, and how that existing structure can be extended without making the interface inconsistent.

Many relevant repository paths are already available internally through helpers such as:

repo_get_git_dir() repo_get_common_dir() repo_get_work_tree()

Similarly, git rev-parse --git-path already relies on existing path resolution logic. So the work is not about inventing these values from scratch, but about exposing a selected subset of them through git repo info in a way that fits its current design.

The first implementation step would be to map existing helpers and path resolution logic to a small set of repo info fields. After that, I would extend the output code in builtin/repo.c to report those fields in a consistent way.

In the current implementation, git repo info is handled by cmd_repo_info() in builtin/repo.c. The currently supported keys are defined in repo_info_field[], and the command prints values through print_fields() and print_all_fields().

A likely first implementation step would be to add new entries to repo_info_field[] for the first batch of path-related keys, backed by new getter functions that fit alongside existing ones such as get_layout_bare(), get_layout_shallow(), get_object_format(), and get_references_format(). The main user-facing path through the command would still remain cmd_repo_info() together with the existing print_fields() and print_all_fields() flow, so my goal would be to extend that structure rather than introduce a separate special case for path values.

For the initial batch, my expectation is that the implementation will mostly look like:

1. identify which existing repository or path helper corresponds to the
   field to be exposed
2. add a getter that matches the shape expected by repo_info_field[]
3. register the new field in repo_info_field[]
4. update the output and tests to cover the new field
5. update the documentation for the new field and its path format

In practical terms, I expect the first series to stay close to the existing structure in builtin/repo.c rather than try to redesign it. If the early fields are backed cleanly by helpers such as repo_get_git_dir(), repo_get_common_dir(), or repo_get_work_tree(), I would prefer to start there and let review on those patches shape the approach for later fields.

For path-related values, the main work would not be inventing new data, but deciding which existing repository and path helpers should back each key and how those paths should be formatted consistently in git repo info.

One of the main design questions is path formatting. The ideas page explicitly mentions the need to decide between relative and absolute paths. I do not want to assume the answer in advance. Instead, I would review the current discussion, compare the behavior of existing commands, and propose a small, consistent approach on the mailing list.

I also expect that some preparatory cleanup or refactoring may be useful before adding new fields. If so, I would keep that work minimal and send it as small separate patches.

Patch strategy

I expect the implementation to be divided into small patches so that each change can be reviewed independently.

A likely patch strategy would be:

1. small preparatory cleanup if needed
2. add a first small batch of layout-related fields, together with the
   tests and documentation updates needed for those fields
3. extend support with additional agreed path-related fields, again with
   matching tests and documentation updates

For the first batch, I currently expect something on the order of 4 to 6 patches, depending on how much preparatory cleanup is useful and on whether tests and documentation read more clearly combined with the field patches or as separate follow-up patches in the same series. I do not want to promise an exact count in advance, but I do want the first series to stay small enough that each patch still has a clear purpose.

I do not want to treat tests and documentation as a final clean-up stage. Since these are user-visible additions to git repo info, I think the tests and documentation should evolve with each field batch, so that the mailing list can review the interface and its description at the same time as the implementation.

If existing in-progress series already cover some of these parts, I would adjust the breakdown accordingly and focus on what remains useful and open.

Tests

Tests would be added alongside the new behavior rather than at the very end.

Depending on the exact scope agreed on, test cases may include:

ordinary repositories linked worktrees superproject and submodule cases cases where path values differ from simple defaults

Where possible, I would compare the new git repo info output against existing git rev-parse behavior, since many of the proposed fields are already exposed there. I would also look for opportunities to reuse or mirror the same repository layouts and edge cases that are already important to rev-parse, instead of inventing unrelated test-only cases.

For fields whose behavior is intentionally meant to correspond closely to git rev-parse, I would like the tests to make that relationship clear. For example, if a new git repo info field is meant to expose the same information as a particular rev-parse query, I would try to test both in the same repository setup so that any differences are explicit and intentional rather than accidental.

I would keep the tests focused on observable behavior instead of overfitting them to a particular implementation detail.

What I will not try to do

To keep the project realistic, I do not plan to:

redesign all of git repo fully replace git rev-parse implement every possible repository path query work on both git repo info and git repo structure at full scope in the same project

The project should stay focused on a well-defined subset of path-related metadata for git repo info.

Expected deliverables

By the end of the project, I expect to deliver:

support for a useful set of path-related values in git repo info tests covering the new functionality for those fields documentation updates for the new fields and their behavior one or more patch series discussed and refined on the Git mailing list

Success criteria

I would consider the project successful if, by the end of the GSoC period, the following are true:

1. a first useful batch of path-related git repo info fields has been
   implemented and is in good shape on the mailing list, ideally merged
   or close to merge-ready
2. the new fields are covered by tests that clearly exercise the agreed
   repository layouts and path behavior
3. the documentation for those fields has been updated together with the
   implementation
4. if review and scope permit, at least one further agreed batch of
   fields has also been implemented or is well advanced

Timeline

Community bonding period

Study builtin/repo.c and the current git repo info implementation Review recent and ongoing mailing list discussions related to git repo Compare current git repo info behavior with git rev-parse Refine the exact scope with mentors and mailing list feedback Identify the first small batch of fields that looks realistic for an initial patch series Review whether any in-progress series already cover part of that first batch, so that I can avoid duplicating ongoing work

Week 1

Confirm the exact first batch of fields to target Prepare and send an initial patch series for that batch Include tests and documentation updates in that first series instead of leaving them to the end

Week 2

Address review comments on the initial series Revise the first batch if there is feedback about key naming, output shape, or relative versus absolute paths Decide whether the current direction is stable enough to continue with a second batch or whether the first batch needs another reroll first

Weeks 3 to 4

Address review comments on the initial series Refine the first batch if there is feedback about field naming or path formatting Settle the first round of tests and documentation If the first batch is accepted or close to settled, identify the exact second batch to work on next

Weeks 5 to 6

Implement a second agreed batch of path-related fields, likely selected git rev-parse --git-path equivalents Send the next patch series with tests and documentation updates for that batch Keep the second batch narrower than the first draft of the overall idea if review shows that path formatting or naming still needs discussion

Weeks 7 to 8

Address review comments on the second batch Refine edge cases involving worktrees, submodules, or path formatting Make sure the user-visible behavior is documented clearly for whatever subset of fields is actually agreed on

Weeks 9 to 10

Finish remaining agreed work Use the remaining time as buffer for rerolls, regressions, or scope reduction if needed If the core path-related work is in good shape, investigate a small stretch item closely related to git repo info rather than branching out into a separate large feature

Weeks 11 to 12

Handle any remaining review rounds on the core patch series Polish tests and documentation for the agreed set of fields Use the remaining time for final cleanup, rerolls, and project summary rather than for opening a new large piece of work

Core goals for the project

1. land or get close to landing a first useful batch of path-related
   git repo info fields
2. implement at least one further agreed batch if the first one is in
   good shape
3. keep tests and documentation updated as part of the patch series

Stretch work

1. add a small extra batch beyond the core set if review cycles go well
2. investigate a nearby repo info improvement such as a small category
   or interface refinement, but only if the main path-related work is
   already in good shape

Risks and mitigation

One risk is that design discussion may take longer than expected, especially around path representation and output structure.

To reduce that risk, I would keep the patch series small and prioritize the least controversial values first.

Another risk is overlap with work already in progress. If that happens, I would adjust the project scope to avoid duplication and focus on what is still useful and open.

Why I think I am a good fit

I have already started learning Git's normal contribution workflow through a microproject, including building Git from source, running tests, preparing patches, responding to review, and rerolling them on the mailing list.

This project is a good fit for me because it requires exactly the kind of work I have already started doing in Git: reading existing code paths carefully, making small user-visible improvements, and refining the result through review rather than trying to force a large one-shot design.

References

Official and technical references

SoC 2026 idea page https://git.github.io/SoC-2026-Ideas/

General application information https://git.github.io/General-Application-Information/

git repo documentation https://git-scm.com/docs/git-repo

git rev-parse documentation https://git-scm.com/docs/git-rev-parse

git-sizer project https://github.com/github/git-sizer

Relevant mailing list threads

Recent patch series adding path-related support to git repo https://public-inbox.org/git/20260228224252.72788-1-lucasseikioshiro@gmail.com/

More recent work-in-progress series for category and path keys and path-format https://public-inbox.org/git/pull.2208.v6.git.git.1772428548.gitgitgadget@gmail.com/

Recent GSoC proposal thread on improving the new git repo command https://public-inbox.org/git/20260303140732.16886-1-pushkarkumarsingh1970@gmail.com/

Another recent GSoC proposal thread on improving and extending git repo https://public-inbox.org/git/CA+rGoLd-1Mb5JG1H1PvE-kyjdznrLVFjwQiMLHtd2ETQ-igmXg@mail.gmail.com/

Recent proposal thread focused on the same SoC idea https://public-inbox.org/git/CAO_P5U3g_+RpnDUmEv_qX-3GVhpxLV97eMxP1apERc0KU_95tQ@mail.gmail.com/

Recent discussion around git repo structure enhancements https://public-inbox.org/git/CAO_P5U2f4MD-URre+4ocC=YQ570hr03pZHDk1jvuSOKx4aLOCA@mail.gmail.com/

Microproject discussion thread https://public-inbox.org/git/CAKWWG_nGhD6vqhAS1mkEwBQPrg_YX0+C3-xW=Q3ifFDw4dDviw@mail.gmail.com/

Microproject patch thread https://public-inbox.org/git/20260315231538.68586-1-jerrywang183@yahoo.com/

Review on the microproject patch thread https://public-inbox.org/git/CAOLa=ZTpfHUySnMgCFMnvo2JcRSv8zqFP-cLFSs+Ab5Cy2zsvg@mail.gmail.com/

Follow-up patch for header parsing errors https://public-inbox.org/git/20260316195847.92386-1-jerrywang183@yahoo.com/

Follow-up patch for binary and garbage patch errors
Sent to the mailing list; public archive link to be added once indexed.
Subject: [GSoC PATCH] apply: report input location in binary and garbage patch errors

Thanks, Jialong

Hi all,

This is v3 of my proposal draft for the "Improve the new git repo command" project. I am including the full draft inline below for convenience.

In this revision, I tried to make the scope more realistic and better aligned with the current public discussion around `git repo info`. In particular, I:

- revised the proposal so it does not assume that path-related `git repo
  info` work is starting from scratch
- reframed the project around integration, testing, repository-aware
  cleanup, and any still-open metadata gaps
- added my more recent Git contributions
- added a short "immediate next steps" section describing the kind of
  `git repo` patch I want to work on next before the coding period

I would appreciate any feedback from mentors and reviewers on whether this revised framing is closer to the right direction.

Thanks for any feedback, Jialong

Improve the git repo command

Name Jialong Wang

Email jerrywang183@yahoo.com

Preferred project size 175 hours

About me

My name is Jialong Wang, and I plan to apply to Git for GSoC 2026.

I have been getting familiar with Git's development workflow by building Git from source, reading the contribution documents, and working on patches through the mailing list. My initial microproject focused on improving corrupt patch location reporting in `git apply` and `git am`. That work went through mailing-list review, including comments from Karthik Nayak and Junio C Hamano, and gave me direct experience with rerolling patches, updating tests, and using CI to catch gaps I had missed locally.

Since then, I have continued contributing small Git patches and follow-up work instead of stopping after the microproject. My recent contributions include:

1. an initial patch series to report the location of corrupt patches
   more clearly
2. a follow-up patch to report input locations in header parsing errors
   in `apply.c`
3. a follow-up patch to report input locations in binary and garbage
   patch error paths in `apply.c`
4. `t2203: avoid suppressing git status exit code`
5. `object-name: turn INTERPRET_BRANCH_* constants into enum values`

This has helped me get comfortable with Git's normal workflow of starting with a small change, responding to review, rerolling appropriately, and then continuing with logically related follow-up work.

Project summary

I would like to work on improving the new `git repo` command, with a primary focus on `git repo info`.

The `git repo` command was introduced to provide a cleaner interface for querying repository metadata. Path-related values are a natural part of that goal, but the public discussion this year has already shown that this topic is not starting from zero: there is ongoing work around path-related fields, category-aware key naming, and path-format behavior.

Because of that, I do not want to frame this proposal as "I will newly add repository path metadata" in isolation. Instead, my proposal is to improve `git repo info` by building on the direction already taking shape upstream, focusing on integration, testing, repository-aware cleanup, and any remaining path-related or adjacent metadata work that is still useful and unimplemented by the time GSoC begins.

The goal is not to replace `git rev-parse`, but to make `git repo info` a more coherent and better-tested structured interface for repository metadata.

Motivation

Today, scripts and tools still often rely on commands such as:

- `git rev-parse --git-dir`
- `git rev-parse --show-toplevel`
- `git rev-parse --git-path <path>`

These commands are useful, but they were not primarily designed as a structured repository metadata interface.

Since `git repo info` already exists for this purpose, extending and refining it would make repository layout information easier to query in a cleaner and more consistent way. However, given the current public work in progress, I think the most useful contribution is not to duplicate existing series, but to help move this area toward a better integrated and upstream-ready state.

Current context

I am aware that work on path-related `git repo info` fields has already started. There have already been patch series and proposal discussions for path keys, category requests, path formatting, and nearby `git repo structure` ideas.

Because of that, one of my first goals during the bonding period would be to review the current state of those discussions carefully, identify what remains open, and refine the exact project scope based on mentor feedback. I would rather build on the current direction than duplicate work that is already in progress.

At this point, the direction that seems most realistic to me is:

1. first align with the upstream direction that is already emerging for
   `git repo info`
2. improve the command's internal consistency and test coverage
3. implement remaining path-related or adjacent metadata work only where
   it is still clearly useful and not already being covered elsewhere

Immediate next steps

Before the coding period, I want to keep contributing in this area through small reviewable patches instead of waiting until GSoC starts.

My immediate plan is:

1. review the latest upstream state of the path-related and
   category-related `git repo info` work
2. identify one small `git repo` patch that does not duplicate an
   in-flight series
3. start either with a repository-aware cleanup in `builtin/repo.c` or
   with stronger tests in `t/t1900-repo-info.sh`, depending on which
   direction is still open and useful
4. use that first patch series to validate the project direction with
   the mailing list before committing to a larger implementation batch

Proposed work

The main objective of this project is to improve `git repo info` as a structured repository metadata interface while avoiding duplication of public in-flight work.

I expect the work to proceed in four connected parts:

1. review the current implementation and ongoing mailing-list
   discussions, then narrow the initial scope to a first small batch of
   cleanup, tests, or still-open metadata work
2. discuss design details on the mailing list, especially where there
   are open questions about path naming, path formatting, or the
   relationship with existing `git rev-parse` behavior
3. implement the agreed functionality through small patch series, with
   each patch or small patch group carrying its own tests and
   documentation updates for the user-visible behavior
4. if the first batch is in good shape, extend support to a second
   agreed batch of improvements, whether that means remaining
   path-related fields, repository-aware cleanup, or nearby metadata
   work that still appears useful

Initial scope

At the beginning of the project, I would prefer to keep the first practical batch conservative.

Rather than assuming that the first implementation work should directly add a large number of path keys, I would prefer to start from one of these two realistic entry points, depending on the state of upstream work:

1. a small batch of still-unimplemented layout-related fields with clear
   `rev-parse` equivalents, if those remain open
2. repository-aware cleanups and stronger tests around `git repo info`,
   if the path-field direction is already substantially covered by
   existing series

If path-related values are still a good first target by the beginning of the coding period, the most likely initial candidates would be a small set of high-value layout paths such as:

- `git-dir`
- `common-dir`
- `toplevel`
- `superproject-working-tree`

If those are already substantially addressed, I would instead prioritize cleanups and tests that help the command mature, for example:

- reducing unnecessary reliance on global repository state inside
  `builtin/repo.c`
- strengthening coverage in `t/t1900-repo-info.sh`
- covering edge cases such as linked worktrees and `--separate-git-dir`

Technical approach

The implementation of `git repo` is primarily in `builtin/repo.c`. The first step would be to understand how `git repo info` currently collects and prints repository metadata, and how that existing structure can be extended or cleaned up without making the interface inconsistent.

Many relevant repository values are already available internally through helpers such as:

- `repo_get_git_dir()`
- `repo_get_common_dir()`
- `repo_get_work_tree()`

Similarly, `git rev-parse` and `git rev-parse --git-path` already rely on existing path resolution logic. So the work is not about inventing these values from scratch, but about exposing or integrating a selected subset of them through `git repo info` in a way that fits its current design.

Patch strategy

I expect the implementation to be divided into small patches so that each change can be reviewed independently.

A likely patch strategy would be:

1. a small preparatory cleanup if needed
2. a first small batch of `git repo` improvements, together with the
   tests and documentation updates needed for those changes
3. a second batch that extends the same direction once the first one is
   reviewed

I do not want to treat tests and documentation as a final cleanup stage. Since these are user-visible changes to `git repo info`, I think they should evolve with each patch batch so that the mailing list can review the interface and its description at the same time as the implementation.

Tests

Tests would be added alongside the new behavior rather than at the very end.

Depending on the exact scope agreed on, test cases may include:

- ordinary repositories
- linked worktrees
- superproject and submodule cases
- repositories created with `--separate-git-dir`
- cases where path values differ from simple defaults

Where possible, I would compare new `git repo info` behavior against existing `git rev-parse` behavior when the semantics are intentionally close. I would also look for opportunities to reuse or mirror repository layouts and edge cases that are already important elsewhere.

What I will not try to do

To keep the project realistic, I do not plan to:

- redesign all of `git repo`
- fully replace `git rev-parse`
- reimplement path-related work that is already being actively reviewed
- work on both `git repo info` and `git repo structure` at full scope in
  the same project

Expected deliverables

By the end of the project, I expect to deliver:

- support for a useful set of `git repo info` improvements that are
  still clearly open and upstream-relevant
- tests covering the new functionality and relevant repository layouts
- documentation updates for the new fields or behavior
- one or more patch series discussed and refined on the Git mailing list

Success criteria

I would consider the project successful if, by the end of the GSoC period, the following are true:

1. a first useful batch of `git repo` improvements has been implemented
   and is in good shape on the mailing list, ideally merged or close to
   merge-ready
2. the new or refined behavior is covered by tests that clearly
   exercise the agreed repository layouts and semantics
3. the documentation has been updated together with the implementation
4. if review and scope permit, at least one further agreed batch of
   improvements has also been implemented or is well advanced

Timeline

Community bonding period

- study `builtin/repo.c` and the current `git repo info` implementation
- review recent and ongoing mailing-list discussions related to
  `git repo`
- compare current `git repo info` behavior with related
  `git rev-parse` behavior
- refine the exact scope with mentors and mailing-list feedback
- identify the first small batch of work that looks realistic for an
  initial patch series

Weeks 1-3

- confirm the exact first batch of work to target
- prepare and send an initial patch series for that batch
- include tests and documentation updates in that first series
- address review comments and reroll as needed

Weeks 4-6

- continue strengthening semantics and coverage
- add tests for edge cases such as linked worktrees and
  `--separate-git-dir`
- resolve small interface inconsistencies discovered during the early
  cleanup work

Weeks 7-9

- finish or polish any remaining path/category/path-format work that
  still needs implementation or integration
- coordinate patch scope with the latest upstream discussion
- update documentation to match settled behavior

Weeks 10-12

- implement one or more remaining metadata or interface improvements
  that are still clearly useful and unclaimed
- focus on review-driven cleanup, additional tests, and documentation
  polish
- prepare final report and project summary

Risks and mitigation

The main risk is overlap with parallel upstream work. I plan to mitigate that by treating the project as integration-oriented from the beginning, keeping patch series small, and adjusting scope based on the latest public discussion and mentor guidance.

A second risk is that some of the path-related work may be largely settled before the coding period starts. If that happens, I would shift effort toward repository-aware cleanups, stronger test coverage, documentation alignment, and other still-open `git repo` improvements rather than forcing redundant feature work.

Why I think I am a good fit

I have already invested time in learning Git's contribution process through actual submissions rather than only private experimentation. That includes building the project, reading tests, sending patches, rerolling in response to feedback, and adjusting patch structure when maintainers asked for it.

I believe that experience is directly relevant here. The main challenge of this project is not only writing code, but also moving an evolving command forward in an upstream-friendly way without duplicating parallel work. My recent contributions have helped me understand that process much better, and I believe they put me in a stronger position to carry this project successfully.

Relevant links

SoC 2026 idea page https://git.github.io/SoC-2026-Ideas/

General application information https://git.github.io/General-Application-Information/

git repo documentation https://git-scm.com/docs/git-repo

git rev-parse documentation https://git-scm.com/docs/git-rev-parse

Recent patch series adding path-related support to git repo https://public-inbox.org/git/20260228224252.72788-1-lucasseikioshiro@gmail.com/

Recent work-in-progress series for category and path keys and `--path-format` https://public-inbox.org/git/pull.2208.v6.git.git.1772428548.gitgitgadget@gmail.com/

Recent GSoC proposal thread on improving the new git repo command https://public-inbox.org/git/20260303140732.16886-1-pushkarkumarsingh1970@gmail.com/

Another recent GSoC proposal thread on improving and extending git repo https://public-inbox.org/git/CA+rGoLd-1Mb5JG1H1PvE-kyjdznrLVFjwQiMLHtd2ETQ-igmXg@mail.gmail.com/

Recent proposal thread focused on the same SoC idea https://public-inbox.org/git/CAO_P5U3g_+RpnDUmEv_qX-3GVhpxLV97eMxP1apERc0KU_95tQ@mail.gmail.com/

Microproject discussion thread https://public-inbox.org/git/CAKWWG_nGhD6vqhAS1mkEwBQPrg_YX0+C3-xW=Q3ifFDw4dDviw@mail.gmail.com/

Microproject patch thread https://public-inbox.org/git/20260315231538.68586-1-jerrywang183@yahoo.com/

Follow-up patch for header parsing errors https://public-inbox.org/git/20260316195847.92386-1-jerrywang183@yahoo.com/