On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

Phil Hord [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Oct 5, 2011 9:14 PM, "SZEDER Gábor" [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 05:44:54PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

SZEDER Gábor [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

And what about unreadable .git files?

Having then inside a working tree is so sick that I do not think it
deserves consideration.

I'm not sure why is this any different than having a .git directory
that is not a repository inside a working tree.

What should happen here? Ignore it and keep searching? Or fail?

I just added some common gitfile detection code and I noticed that the
oddball case now is the one that dies on error rather than continuing to
search for alternate explanations.  I left the oddball behavior assuming it
is desireable, but now you have me rethinking it.

Yeah, after thinking about it a bit more, whenever we see ".git" during
the upward discovery process, we should always warn if we know it is _not_
a GIT_DIR before looking for another ".git" at higher levels, as anything
in that directory cannot be added. If we cannot tell if it is or is not
a GIT_DIR, we should error out---the reason we cannot tell most likely is
because we cannot read it, and such a file, if it is not a GIT_DIR, cannot
be tracked in the real GIT_DIR at a higher level, and if it is a GIT_DIR,
we cannot use it to record updates or inspect existing history.

How's that sound as a guideline?

Ok.  Three cases, then:

if .git is valid, we use it.
If .git is bogus, we warn about it and keep searching.
If .git is unverifiable (permissions, IO-fail, etc.), we die.

Phil