Re: [PATCH v2 09/11] setup: rename ref storage format environment variables

On Wed, Sep 09, 2026 at 01:40:07PM +0530, Kaartic Sivaraam wrote:

On 9/7/26 16:48, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:

quoted

@@ -2785,19 +2788,21 @@ static void repository_format_configure(struct repository_format *repo_fmt,
  	 */
  	if (ref_storage_format != REF_STORAGE_FORMAT_UNKNOWN) {
  		/* nothing to do */
-	} else if ((env = getenv(GIT_REFERENCE_BACKEND_ENVIRONMENT))) {
+	} else if (((env = getenv(GIT_REF_STORAGE_FORMAT_ENVIRONMENT)) ||
+		    (env = getenv(GIT_REFERENCE_BACKEND_ENVIRONMENT)))) {
  		ref_storage_format = ref_storage_format_by_uri(env, &ref_storage_payload);
  		if (ref_storage_format == REF_STORAGE_FORMAT_UNKNOWN)
  			die(_("unknown ref storage format specified via %s: '%s'"),
-			    GIT_REFERENCE_BACKEND_ENVIRONMENT, env);
+			    GIT_REF_STORAGE_FORMAT_ENVIRONMENT, env);

We're getting the value from GIT_REFERENCE_BACKEND_ENVIRONMENT as a fallback
but we are mentioning only GIT_REF_STORAGE_FORMAT_ENVIRONMENT in the error
message. Would this not be misleading if the value actually comes from
GIT_REFERENCE_BACKEND_ENVIRONMENT?

Yeah, fair. I already had this on my radar, but thought that the
solution was a bit too ugly because it resulted in a bit of duplication.
I was thus sweeping this under the rug a bit, if I'm being totally
honest.

Anyway, will adapt.

quoted

diff --git a/t/test-lib.sh b/t/test-lib.sh
index 1f0505e412..60a2179a0a 100644
--- a/t/test-lib.sh
+++ b/t/test-lib.sh

@@ -575,8 +575,8 @@ export EDITOR
  GIT_TEST_BUILTIN_HASH=$("$GIT_BINARY" version --build-options | sed -ne 's/^default-hash: //p')
  GIT_DEFAULT_HASH="${GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_HASH:-$GIT_TEST_BUILTIN_HASH}"
  export GIT_DEFAULT_HASH
-GIT_DEFAULT_REF_FORMAT="${GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_REF_FORMAT:-files}"
-export GIT_DEFAULT_REF_FORMAT
+GIT_DEFAULT_REF_STORAGE_FORMAT="${GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_REF_FORMAT:-files}"
+export GIT_DEFAULT_REF_STORAGE_FORMAT

Would it make sense to also rename GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_REF_FORMAT to
GIT_TEST_DEFAULT_REF_STORAGE_FORMAT for consistency sake?

Oh, that one I completely missed. Good catch, thanks!

Patrick