From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] Add a function to set a non-default work tree Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:09:44 -0700 Message-ID: <7v3apeagxj.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <7vprslcdxf.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Schindelin To: Daniel Barkalow X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Apr 22 02:10:49 2008 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Jo65w-0002Wa-C5 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 02:10:48 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757888AbYDVAJ6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:09:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757593AbYDVAJ6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:09:58 -0400 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:35224 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756805AbYDVAJ5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:09:57 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E417728C5; Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:09:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FB1A28C4; Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:09:52 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Daniel Barkalow writes: > On Sat, 19 Apr 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote: > ... >> How should the setting of new work tree from sideways using this interface >> interact with bareness of the repository? > > I'm only using it before any initialization and when I'm going to force > the repository (which doesn't even exist yet; I haven't set git_dir let > alone created it, let alone looked at its configuration) to be bare, so I > hadn't considered that. That is not quite an explanation that builds confidence in a patch that adds a generic-sounding helper function that could be called by later callers. Doesn't it have a very tempting name for people to call?