Re: [PATCH 3/5] Clean up work-tree handling

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi,

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, Matthias Lederhofer wrote:

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> > +const char *get_git_work_tree(void)
> > +{
> > +	static int initialized = 0;
> > +	if (!initialized) {
> > +		work_tree = getenv(GIT_WORK_TREE_ENVIRONMENT);
> > +		if (!work_tree) {
> > +			work_tree = git_work_tree_cfg;
> > +			if (work_tree && !is_absolute_path(work_tree))
> > +			work_tree = git_path(work_tree);
> 
> A tab is missing here.

Right.  And as Junio pointed out, an xstrdup().

> > -				fprintf(stderr, "No directory given for --work-tree.\n" );
> > +				error("No directory given for --work-tree.\n");
> 
> There should probably be no '\n' at the end when the 'error' function
> is used.  There are two other calls to fprintf(stderr, <error message>)
> next to the one you changed, why did you change this one but not the
> other ones?

Well, that is a left over of some unrelated editing.

The patch series that I sent out was deficient in many ways, but I was 
tired, and wanted to show where I am heading.

ATM I am trying to finish up this series, with quite a few changes to the 
code I sent out.

But there is a fundamental question I have to ask: Is there any reason why 

	$ git --git-dir=/some/where/else.git bla

should pretend that the repo is bare if core.bare == 1?  I mean, we are 
implicitely setting the work tree to the cwd, no?

IOW I see the merits of "core.bare = false" (to prevent harm when calling 
git inside the git directory), but I cannot see the merits of "core.bare = 
true".  Someone enlighten me?

Ciao,
Dscho