From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] Clean up work-tree handling Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 21:02:56 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: References: <7vk5sly3h9.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vejitwe8m.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vlkd1umwf.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vodhvm1dg.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, matled@gmx.net To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Jul 29 22:03:22 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 1IFEz3-0000sG-Jl for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 29 Jul 2007 22:03:21 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933433AbXG2UDP (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Jul 2007 16:03:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933354AbXG2UDP (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Jul 2007 16:03:15 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:42653 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1763354AbXG2UDN (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Jul 2007 16:03:13 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2007 20:03:11 -0000 Received: from wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de (EHLO openvpn-client) [132.187.25.13] by mail.gmx.net (mp019) with SMTP; 29 Jul 2007 22:03:11 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19jJQRsqt9jiVNMUQjGXnI8jQh0qau4Upmmxzyipr O7S7XrKQy26MTV X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <7vodhvm1dg.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > I still have a problem with what should happen if both "core.bare == true" > > and "core.worktree = /some/where/over/the/rainbow". Should it be bare, or > > should it have a working tree? > > They sound contradicting with each other to me. Isn't that a > clear configuration error? Yes. But why not play nice? Okay, the real reason I do not want to catch this error is because it complicates my code. But really, why not say "worktree takes precedence"? BTW I realised that callers of setup_git_directory_gently() might forget the check for the repository format version... Ciao, Dscho