From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Make .git directory validation code test HEAD Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 21:56:47 -0700 Message-ID: <7v7je6slps.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <874q9bcu6d.fsf@litku.valo.iki.fi> <46a038f905082708371719121c@mail.gmail.com> <87zmr39svy.fsf@litku.valo.iki.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Kalle Valo , Git Mailing List X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Aug 28 06:57:59 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E9FEG-0005RV-03 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 28 Aug 2005 06:57:12 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751109AbVH1E4t (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Aug 2005 00:56:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751105AbVH1E4t (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Aug 2005 00:56:49 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao05.cox.net ([68.230.241.34]:63361 "EHLO fed1rmmtao05.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751109AbVH1E4t (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Aug 2005 00:56:49 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.4.9.127]) by fed1rmmtao05.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20050828045647.EDCR8651.fed1rmmtao05.cox.net@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>; Sun, 28 Aug 2005 00:56:47 -0400 To: Linus Torvalds In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Sat, 27 Aug 2005 13:54:42 -0700 (PDT)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Linus Torvalds writes: > This also removes the tests for "$GIT_DIR" and "$GIT_OBJECT_DIRECTORY" > being directories, since the other tests will implicitly test for that > anyway (ie the tests for HEAD, refs and 00 would fail). I've thought about it when you brought up the Andrew's naked git repository detection issue, but one thing I was undecided was that if we would want to forbid either of these "directories" being a symlink to another directory. I think it would be OK; admittedly "test -d" says OK for a symlink to a directory. I accept the patch, but will not apply and push it out right now; I am not in a shape to be operating heavy equipment ;-). Please wait until tomorrow morning.