Signed-off-by: Jonas Fonseca <redacted>
---
git-instaweb.sh | 1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
On IRC yesterday, two were asking for this and it seems simply enough.
Apparently, git-instaweb is a great way to see if you've set up a
remote repository correctly.
diff --git a/git-instaweb.sh b/git-instaweb.sh
index 95c3e5a..14917ac 100755
--- a/git-instaweb.sh
+++ b/git-instaweb.sh
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ USAGE='[--start] [--stop] [--restart]
[--local] [--httpd=<httpd>] [--port=<port>] [--browser=<browser>]
[--module-path=<path> (for Apache2 only)]'
+SUBDIRECTORY_OK=Yes
. git-sh-setup
fqgitdir="$GIT_DIR"
--
1.5.3.4.1481.g854da-dirty
--
Jonas Fonseca
Jonas Fonseca [off-list ref] writes:
quoted hunk
Signed-off-by: Jonas Fonseca <redacted>
---
git-instaweb.sh | 1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
On IRC yesterday, two were asking for this and it seems simply enough.
Apparently, git-instaweb is a great way to see if you've set up a
remote repository correctly.
diff --git a/git-instaweb.sh b/git-instaweb.sh
index 95c3e5a..14917ac 100755
--- a/git-instaweb.sh
+++ b/git-instaweb.sh
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ USAGE='[--start] [--stop] [--restart]
[--local] [--httpd=<httpd>] [--port=<port>] [--browser=<browser>]
[--module-path=<path> (for Apache2 only)]'
+SUBDIRECTORY_OK=Yes
. git-sh-setup
fqgitdir="$GIT_DIR"
I'd agree with the goal of the patch, and I would not doubt the
patch worked for you, but it somewhat feels wrong that you can
say "It is Ok to run this script from a subdirectory" and that
is the magic to allow something to work in a bare repository.
Care to share your insights on what is going on?
Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote Fri, Nov 02, 2007:
Jonas Fonseca [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Signed-off-by: Jonas Fonseca <redacted>
---
git-instaweb.sh | 1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
On IRC yesterday, two were asking for this and it seems simply enough.
Apparently, git-instaweb is a great way to see if you've set up a
remote repository correctly.
diff --git a/git-instaweb.sh b/git-instaweb.sh
index 95c3e5a..14917ac 100755
--- a/git-instaweb.sh
+++ b/git-instaweb.sh
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ USAGE='[--start] [--stop] [--restart]
[--local] [--httpd=<httpd>] [--port=<port>] [--browser=<browser>]
[--module-path=<path> (for Apache2 only)]'
+SUBDIRECTORY_OK=Yes
. git-sh-setup
fqgitdir="$GIT_DIR"
I'd agree with the goal of the patch, and I would not doubt the
patch worked for you, but it somewhat feels wrong that you can
say "It is Ok to run this script from a subdirectory" and that
is the magic to allow something to work in a bare repository.
Care to share your insights on what is going on?
After disecting the source code in more depth as well as the trace of
running git-instaweb inside a bare repository, the command relies on
git-sh-setup (which is assumed to be safe in bare repos) to initialize a
sane value of GIT_DIR. It uses GIT_DIR to initialize:
+ fqgitdir=/tmp/git.git
which is never touched later (and could possibly be changed to just use
the GIT_DIR variable instead, since either is used interchangably
throughout the script. In fact, it later does:
GIT_DIR="$fqgitdir"
which could be removed. Anyway, this fqgitdir variable is used for
creating a place for gitweb and HTTP server configuration files under
"$fqgitdir/gitweb".
+ mkdir -p /tmp/git.git/gitweb/tmp
The remaining things in the script is option handling and setting up the
HTTP server configuration. The only place where I see it possibly
"spilling out" into the parent directory is this sequence:
+ dirname /tmp/git.git
+ script=
s#^\(my\|our\) $projectroot =.*#\1 $projectroot = "/tmp";#
s#\(my\|our\) $gitbin =.*#\1 $gitbin = "/home/fonseca/bin";#
s#\(my\|our\) $projects_list =.*#\1 $projects_list = $projectroot;#
s#\(my\|our\) $git_temp =.*#\1 $git_temp = "/tmp/git.git/gitweb/tmp";#
Where it creates gitweb.cgi. This might make gitweb try to look for .git
directories in subdirectories. Maybe it should create a projects_list
file to explicitly list that only "$barerepo.git" is exported?
--
Jonas Fonseca