Re: [PATCH] setup: trace bare repository setups

[Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com>]

On 2023.04.27 16:36, Glen Choo wrote:
> Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com> writes:
> 
> > From: Glen Choo <chooglen@google.com>
> 
> I can confirm that I did write an initial version of this, which Josh
> cleaned up for the mailing list (thanks!). Most, if not all, of the
> mistakes are originally mine.
> 
> > To make this transition easier, add a trace message to note when we
> > attempt to set up a bare repository without setting GIT_DIR. This allows
> > users and tool developers to audit which of their tools are problematic
> > and report/fix the issue.  When they are sufficiently confident, they
> > would switch over to "safe.bareRepository=explicit".
> 
> One alternative to this is to trace all of the repository setup process.
> E.g. if we traced the data points in t/t1510-repo-setup.sh, like GIT_DIR
> and whether the repository is bare, you could reverse-engineer whether
> we've hit the "set up a bare repository without GIT_DIR" case, but
> that's significantly more complicated. If the goal of this patch is to
> make it easy for users, tool developers and sysadmins to see if
> "safe.bareRepository=explicit" might be tripped, giving a single,
> meaningful event is much easier way to get there.
> 
> It would be nice to trace all of the repo setup eventually, anyway, and
> I don't think this change precludes that.
> 
> > Change-Id: I8e8b5e70ce8c6c81ec4716187c27c44da38b35db
> 
> Leftover from Gerrit, perhaps?
> 
> Unsurprisingly, I don't have comments on the diff, at least not anything
> that Junio hasn't already spotted.

Whoops, thanks for the catch. It would seem my send-email workflow broke
somehow while I was away from work. I also had a comment explaining why
I was sending this out for you, which somehow got dropped.