From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Misspelled directory Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 10:28:28 -0400 Message-ID: <20140519142827.GA20289@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Alexandre Badez X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon May 19 16:28:36 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WmOYN-0006ax-4p for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 19 May 2014 16:28:35 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754291AbaESO2b (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 May 2014 10:28:31 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:55027 "HELO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751544AbaESO2a (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 May 2014 10:28:30 -0400 Received: (qmail 16275 invoked by uid 102); 19 May 2014 14:28:30 -0000 Received: from c-71-63-4-13.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (71.63.4.13) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Mon, 19 May 2014 09:28:30 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 19 May 2014 10:28:28 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 03:05:42PM +0200, Alexandre Badez wrote: > The '.' directory is not the same as the root directory; you can see > that the /README.md and /./README.md are different. Right. Inside git trees, "." as an entry name does not have any special meaning. However, because it does have meaning in filesystems, git itself will never create such an entry, and "git fsck" will warn about it. > I've reported the bug to stackedit ( > https://github.com/benweet/stackedit/issues/405 > ) who ignore it (not their fault). GitHub normally blocks objects that do not pass "fsck" from being pushed, but there are some loopholes when going through the API, which stackedit does. I'll bring this one to the attention of the GitHub API developers. However, the end result will probably be GitHub rejecting the API request from stackedit to create the bogus tree. So stackedit may end up wanting to adjust their code to handle the situation more gracefully anyway. -Peff