Re: [PATCH] [RFC] setup.c: make bare repo discovery optional

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes:

>> > My concern is that if we ever flipped the default (i.e. that
>> > "safe.bareRepository" might someday be ""), that many legitimate cases
>> > of using bare repositories would be broken. I think there are many such
>> > legitimate use cases that _do_ rely on discovering bare repositories
>> > (i.e., Git invocations that do not have a `--git-dir` in their
>> > command-line).
>>
>> I think 99% of such use is to chdir into the directory with HEAD,
>> refs/ and objects/ in it and let git recognise the cwd is a git
>> directory.  Am I mistaken, or are there tools that chdir into
>> objects/08/ and rely on setup_git_directory_gently_1() to find the
>> parent directory of that 'objects' directory to be a git directory?
>
> If you took this change, and then at some point in the future we changed
> the default value of safe.bareRepository to "", wouldn't that break that
> 99% of use cases you are talking about?

Our spawning (e.g. "fetch" run_command()s "upload-pack" in a local
repository, or "fetch" runs "upload-pack" over ssh connection, or
http gateway runs "upload-pack" after learning which repository the
request is fetching from) of subcommands can and should be fixed by
exporting "GIT_DIR=." when we spawn them in the target directory,
and such a fix should be more or less trivial.  It must happen
before such a switch of default happens (if it is what we plan to
do, that is).  Also, the trivial fix must be conveyed to third-party
tool authors and give them time to adjust their ware.

That's part of the usual migration process, and I am not so worried
about it.

If some third-party tool for whatever reason wants to start from a
random subdirectory in a bare repository, that is a different story.
Fixing such a third-party tool would be more involved than "more or
less trivial".

> When I read your "I think 99% of such use is ...", it makes me think
> that this change won't disrupt bare repo discovery when we only traverse
> one layer above $CWD. But this change disrupts the case where we don't
> need to traverse at all to do discovery (i.e., when $CWD is the root of
> a bare repository).

By "this change" you mean what Glen proposes?  I think it was
designed to break the use case where you go there to signal that you
want to use the directory as a repository.

>> I am wondering if another knob to help that particular use case
>> easier may be sufficient.  If you are a forge operator, you'd just
>> set a boolean configuration variable to say "it is sufficient to
>> chdir into a directory to use it a bare repository without exporting
>> the environment variable GIT_DIR=."

And such a boolean, without safe.bareRepository setting, should be
sufficient to cover that 99% of such use, because it disables that
deliberate refusal of treating CWD as a repository without
explicitly saying that is what you want with "GIT_DIR=.".  One thing
I wasn't sure about was if that 99% number is close to reality,
hence my question.

> Yes, GitHub would almost certainly set safe.bareRepository to "*"
> regardless of what Git's own default would be.

And with such a boolean, I am hoping that GitHub do not have to make
such a wildly open setting.  Only $CWD that is the top of a repository,
without allowing it to be any random subdirectory, would be allowed.

> I'm not sure I agree that end-users wouldn't want to touch this knob. If
> they have embedded bare repositories that they rely on as test fixtures,
> for example, wouldn't safe.bareRepository need to be tweaked?

But not in the "My $CWD is always fine" knob, whose only reason is
to simplify things without opening you up unnecessarily too widely
for hosting sites.