Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] setup: introduce new helper 'is_git_directory_verbose'

[Kaartic Sivaraam <kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com>]

On 10/1/26 00:02, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Kaartic Sivaraam <kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Introduce a new helper is_git_directory_verbose() as a
>> counterpart to the existing is_git_directory().
>>
>> is_git_directory_verbose() also populates an optional
>> string strbuf with reasoning around why the given suspect
>> is not a valid git directory. This strbuf in turn can be
>> used to improve the error reporting which is currently blunt:
>>
>>    fatal: not a git repository
>>
>> This is not helpful as the user does not get any hint about "why"
>> the repository is not considered valid.
> 
> I suspect that it is much less the failure to report the reason that
> may confuse users than the failure to report which directory was
> inspected and why we picked that directory.  Once we make it clear
> which directory was used as the repository to run the Git operation
> the user specified, they can visit the directory themselves and see
> that there is no HEAD, etc.  The user may have a leftover GIT_DIR in
> the environment that is interfering with their operation without
> their remembering they still had it, for example.  For this reason,
> I am not so enthused to see this much code churn to tell the user
> the subtle differences among a dangling symlink HEAD, a HEAD
> pointing outside refs, and a missing HEAD.
> 
> What would be preferable is a much less invasive patch that reports
> which path was assumed to be the repository and where it came from
> (among GIT_DIR, auto-discovery stopped at GIT_CEILING_DIRECTORIES,
> etc.).  It would help the user figure out why the directory they
> thought was the Git directory is not what the git binary inspected.
> 
> This patch does report which path we thought HEAD should be at in its
> messages, but does not explain where that assumption came from,
> unlike the verification of the objects/ directory, which mentions the
> environment variable if it is involved.  This feels uneven.
>

Thank you for your insights and excuse the delay. I have tried to take 
this into consideration and just sent a v3. Kindly check the same and 
let me know your thoughts.

   v3: <20261028115412.169748-1-kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com/>

-- 
Sivaraam