Re: [PATCH 8/8] Fix t1500 for sane work-tree behavior

Hi,

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

When GIT_DIR=../.git, and no worktree is specified, it is reasonable
to assume that the repository is not bare, that the work tree is ".."
and that the prefix is the basename of the current directory.

This is the sane behavior.

That is a bit too strong blanket statement, while being weak on
exact conditions, giving only one example.

Okay, let me defend it.

It makes me wonder...

  * When GIT_DIR=../../.git, and no worktree is specified, the
    same holds true, with worktree is "../.."? (probably yes)

You meant with "GIT_DIR=../.."? No.  In that case, I'd assume a bare 
repository, and we're inside the git directory, and unless the user 
specified a working tree, assume that we have none.

  * "GIT_DIR=../../foo/.git"? (I dunno)

Unless ../../foo == .. no.  When we're outside, we're outside.

  * "GIT_DIR=../foo.git"? (probably not)

Unless "$(basename "$(pwd)")" == foo.git, no.

I am assuming that you meant something like this:

    When no worktree is specified, and GIT_DIR (or --git-dir=) is
    zero or more "../" followed by ".git" after stripping trailing
    and/or redundant slashes, it is reasonable to assume that the
    repository is not bare, and the work tree is the parent
    directory of the GIT_DIR directory.

but that requires guesswork if you give only one example and let
the readers to guess.

Your explanation is really much more coherent than mine.  Please replace 
mine.

Ciao,
Dscho