From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] gitweb: Document that gitweb deals with bare repositories Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 19:29:16 -0700 Message-ID: <7vab5dsrur.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20090515211611.27697.82605.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <4A0DDD94.1010901@freescale.com> <200905152336.49319.jnareb@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jakub Narebski , git@vger.kernel.org To: Timur Tabi X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat May 16 04:30:17 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1M59fE-0005GW-GH for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 16 May 2009 04:30:16 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755213AbZEPCaI (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 May 2009 22:30:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755058AbZEPCaH (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 May 2009 22:30:07 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao103.cox.net ([68.230.241.43]:48434 "EHLO fed1rmmtao103.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754669AbZEPCaG (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 May 2009 22:30:06 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao103.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20090516022916.PSQA2915.fed1rmmtao103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>; Fri, 15 May 2009 22:29:16 -0400 Received: from localhost ([68.225.240.211]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id s2VG1b0074aMwMQ042VGoJ; Fri, 15 May 2009 22:29:16 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=4ZHfq1p-qOcA:10 a=dNmzuCNScbMA:10 a=6ohNodAXAAAA:8 a=YL8-FMMFXfK3pgPhNt4A:9 a=bAunCm8DK-SFj-n1FA4ljxEo3gYA:4 a=gDjHQkheYgsA:10 X-CM-Score: 0.00 In-Reply-To: (Timur Tabi's message of "Fri\, 15 May 2009 17\:21\:42 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Timur Tabi writes: >> If you provide access for others, i.e. if those repositories shown in >> gitweb are public repositories, it is much better to use bare >> repositories for that. > > Why? What difference does it make if they clone directly from my > working tree, instead of some shadow repository? There is none. Even though I would not personally publish the live repository I personally work in via gitweb, I do not think that has to be a holy rule not to be broken by anybody. Some people may want to show state of a live tree, and other people may be willing to peek into it. I do not think it is worth spending excess effort beyond giving one educational advice like Jakub did to prevent them from doing so. It's their choice. While they may have to live with the consequence of such an arrangement, other people won't be harmed (I do not think it is such a big deal for them to deal with the fallout either). I personally would not mind peeking into such a gitweb, but I would really hesitate to fetch from a repository that is known to be live. The commits I would see there right now are not likely to be in the finished form (the live repository owner may want to amend them). The repository owner may promise "I'll keep them stable and never amend", but that is worse, at least from my point of view, as nobody is perfect and the resulting history in such a live repository is bound to be full of crufts I'd rather not have to wade through. It is a very useful coalmine canary to see the path in gitweb ending with slash dot git like /home/tt/foo/.git, not /home/tt/foo.git, for me to be able to tell which is which. If it is a bare repository without a work tree, as long as the repository owner has graduated the CVS mentality and acquired a good habit of not pushing things too hastily, there is a chance that the history I would see there is reviewed by the author and cleaned up to be presentable.