Re: [PATCH] Commands requiring a work tree must not run in GIT_DIR

[Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>]

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

> This patch helps when you accidentally run something like git-clean
> in the git directory instead of the work tree.

I think "require_work_tree" reflects what we are trying to do
much better than NOT_BARE.  So maybe we should rename NOT_BARE
to REQUIRE_WORK_TREE.

Existing check function is_bare_repository() is sometimes used
to see if it is a bare repository regardless of where you are
(e.g. refs.c::log_ref_write()), so that function can stay as is,
but the combined check below (you seem to have a few instances
in your patch) can be made into a function require_work_tree().

> diff --git a/git.c b/git.c
> index 5133a07..2027d1c 100644
> --- a/git.c
> +++ b/git.c
> @@ -302,8 +302,9 @@ static void handle_internal_command(int argc, const char **argv, char **envp)
>  			prefix = setup_git_directory();
>  		if (p->option & USE_PAGER)
>  			setup_pager();
> -		if ((p->option & NOT_BARE) && is_bare_repository())
> -			die("%s cannot be used in a bare git directory", cmd);
> +		if ((p->option & NOT_BARE) &&
> +				(is_bare_repository() || is_inside_git_dir()))
> +			die("%s must be run in a work tree", cmd);
>  		trace_argv_printf(argv, argc, "trace: built-in: git");
>  
>  		exit(p->fn(argc, argv, prefix));

Similar to the "conditionally require working tree" you did to
ls-files, "apply --index" and perhaps "apply --cached" (but this
is "perhaps" --- you _could_ have an index in a bare repository,
although it is debatable if there is a valid use case for it),
grep (grep_cache() but perhaps !cached for the same reason),
"read-tree -u", "rerere", "update-index" (except --index-info
and friends that feed object names directly without using
working tree), should require working tree.

On the script front, bisect should require working tree, but I
do not think anybody is stupid enough to start bisecting in a
bare repository ;-)