From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-clone: Error meaningfully on failed HTTP fetches of HEAD Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:24:44 -0700 Message-ID: <7vwt0imoc3.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <11763291192402-git-send-email-martin@catalyst.net.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, junkio@cox.net To: Martin Langhoff X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Apr 12 02:24:51 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Hbn7L-0003OG-Bk for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 02:24:51 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161425AbXDLAYs (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:24:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161431AbXDLAYs (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:24:48 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao107.cox.net ([68.230.241.39]:50469 "EHLO fed1rmmtao107.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161429AbXDLAYq (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:24:46 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao107.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.05.02.00 201-2174-114-20060621) with ESMTP id <20070412002445.LPGU1257.fed1rmmtao107.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:24:45 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id m0Ql1W00A1kojtg0000000; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:24:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: <11763291192402-git-send-email-martin@catalyst.net.nz> (Martin Langhoff's message of "Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:05:19 +1200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Martin Langhoff writes: > A common problem when cloning over http is that the repo has > a symlink for HEAD, and apache refuses to serve symlinks by > default. > > Without this patch, the clone succeeds as a "bare" and "HEADless" > clone, but does not give any indication that things have gone > wrong. > > A bare clone that fails to fetch HEAD will still complete > "successfully". I'm not sure if that's expected/desired. Is a > HEADless repo valid in any situation? You would get "fatal: Not a git repository". Why not default to 'master' (if found) and issue a warning?