Re: [PATCH] clone: forbid --bare --separate-git-dir <dir>

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:45 AM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

Jens Lehmann [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Am 08.01.2013 15:16, schrieb Duy Nguyen:

quoted

On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 02:19:48AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

quoted

    Unfortunately we forgot to forbid the --bare
    --separate-git-dir combination.  In practice, we know no one
    could be using --bare with --separate-git-dir because it is
    broken in the following way: <explanation here>.  So it is
    safe to make good on our mistake and forbid the combination,
    making the command easier to explain.

I don't know what would go in the <explanation here> blank above,
though.  Is it possible that some people are relying on this option
combination?

I can't say it's broken in what way. Maybe it's easier to just support
this case, it's not much work anyway. Jens, maybe squash this to your
original patch?

I'd be fine with that, though my gut feeling is that this should
be a patch of its own (My patch handles the git dir, your's handles
a work tree issue).

I agree that these are totally unrelated issues.

After all, Jonathan's suggestion to forbid it was because the
combination does not make sense and does not have practical uses,
and forbidding it would make the command easier to explain than
leaving it accepted from the command line.  If you choose to go in
the opposite direction and make "clone --bare --separate-git-dir" do
something useful, it should be explained very well in the
documentation part of the patch why such a combination is a good
idea, and in what situation the behaviour is useful and the user may
want to consider using it, I think.

It is more like postponing the usefulness evaluation of the
combination until later (maybe someone will come up with an actual use
case). As of now, --separate-git-dir --bare is a valid combination.
Jens' patch fixes one case but leave the other case broken, which is
why I think it should be in one patch. It's rather ducking head in the
sand than actually declaring that the combination is useful.
-- 
Duy